RT "ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance" has a field with nested RTs of same type; Sinopia does not like

[gracianipicardo]

The RT "ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance" include a property template "References and Related Instances"(bflc:relationship) that nests 2 RTs with the same resourceURI (bflc:Relationship). This profile construction is not accepted by Sinopia data validation.

The nested RTs with same resourceURI are:

"ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:RefWork" "ld4p:RT:bf2:RelatedInstance"

NOTE - This validation error is similar to #27, but opening a new issue because we might need a different approach

[mmcgee]

Wondering if there has been any progress on figuring out a fix for this. The Harvard Incunables project is hoping to implement the RareMat Instance template soon. Thanks.

[gracianipicardo]

This looks like an ontology limitation for the description of rare materials, since BIBFRAME doesn't have a specific class for citations, and the LoC Rare Materials profile uses bflc:Relationship class for both Reference Sources and Related materials. We could start exploring the integration of the ARM modeling recommendation for Bibliographic citations on the ld4p rare materials profile, or figure out a different way of modeling the current use of bflc:Relationship. A potential fix using just one bflc:Relationship RT that combines both uses as citation and related resource has been uploaded to DEV (https://development.sinopia.io/editor/ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance) for your review, @mmcgee, @NancyL , @NancyJean

[NancyL]

Somehow this issue has gone away now we fixed issue 27. It also looks correct to me. Paloma is trying to figure out why it fixed itself.

[gracianipicardo]

On December 2019, the validation error given by Sinopia was the following:

The current profile still includes a bflc:relationship property type=Resource that calls to 2 RTs with class bflc:Relationship. Any chance that this has to do with an update in the Sinopia validation rules @michelleif , @jermnelson ?

[michelleif]

Hi Paloma,

Yes this is due to Sinopia validation rules, it's not anything new, it's just that I didn't document it. It's the same type of problem as having two fields in the same template that both use the same property URI; when re-opening a saved template, Sinopia won't know which field to put the information into (https://github.com/LD4P/sinopia/wiki/Why-Sinopia-doesn't-allow-repeated-propertyURIs-in-a-single-Resource-Template).

So from an Instance you want to refer to both Related Instances and References? Are References places where the Instance is cited? Or Works that the Instance refers to?

Michelle

---

From: Paloma Graciani notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:17 PM To: LD4P/ld4ptemplates ld4ptemplates@noreply.github.com Cc: Michelle Futornick futo@stanford.edu; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [LD4P/ld4ptemplates] RT "ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance" has a field with nested RTs of same type; Sinopia does not like (#28)

On December 2019, the validation error given by Sinopia was the following:

[Capture]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46054906/72475906-88ad0180-37b1-11ea-8880-b013396caac0.PNG

The current profile still includes a bflc:relationship property type=Resource that calls to 2 RTs with class bflc:Relationship. Any chance that this has to do with an update in the Sinopia validation rules @michelleifhttps://github.com/michelleif , @jermnelsonhttps://github.com/jermnelson ?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LD4P/ld4ptemplates/issues/28?email_source=notifications&email_token=AFQAD3PCF3QIKVMJIJRYUYTQ56DOFA5CNFSM4JPZVVP2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJCAHZI#issuecomment-574882789, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFQAD3OI6V2DHJ76ZX2L6G3Q56DOFANCNFSM4JPZVVPQ.

[gracianipicardo]

@michelleif it is the first case, titles that cite the instance being described.

This issue was opened because Sinopia was not validating the property calling to two+ RTs with the same class URI, so we had to figure out a different modeling. For some reason, the validation error doesn't show anymore, even though the property has not been updated: https://stage.sinopia.io/editor/ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance.

Just making sure I am not missing anything

[michelleif]

I just opened it on stage and saw the error.

[gracianipicardo]

Suggesting to use bflc:indexedIn instead of bflc:relationship to link the Instance with the related work, following the Serials Affinity Group modeling proposal. Test RT uploaded to Sinopia dev: https://development.sinopia.io/editor/ld4p:RT:bf2:RareMat:Instance

[gracianipicardo]

Fixed