@targetType

[fordmadox]

Relation Target Type

• add new mandatory attribute @targetType to <targetEntity> with limited values agent, corporateBody, person, family, resource, function

Creator of issue

1. Silke Jagodzinski
2. TS-EAS: EAC-CPF subgroup
3. silkejagodzinski@gmail.com

Related issues / documents

<targetEntity> #215

EAD3 Reconciliation

new EAC attribute

Context

new EAC attribute

Solution documentation:

Summary needed

• information what kind of entity is related

Mandatory within: <targetEntity> Values: agent, corporateBody, person, family, resource, function

Use value agent only for migration from EAC-CPF 2010 to EAC 2.x

Example encoding

<relation>
 <targetEntity targetType="person">
  <part>name or part of the name or term of the related entity</part>
 </targetEntity>
</relation>

[fordmadox]

Just a note that I have a few questions about how to handle the migration for this. Consider this valid EAC 1.0 example:

            <cpfRelation>
                <relationEntry>Incognito</relationEntry>
            </cpfRelation>

Since we have no idea if the target is a person, corporate body, etc., what could we do in this case? Would it possible to add other valid values to the current list of targetType values?

[SJagodzinski]

Since we have no idea if the target is a person, corporate body, etc., what could we do in this case? Would it possible to add other valid values to the current list of targetType values?

What kind of value would that be? Maybe cpf as value only for transformation or migration purposes? What about to define eg person as kind of default value for transformation or migration and communicate this one. Can we provide these values as parameter for xslt?

[kerstarno]

I'd prefer Silke's second suggestion , i.e. using person as the default for transformation or migration and communicating this accordingly in a conversion report. Especially seeing that we've got a few other changes that we might need to communicate as a result of the conversion, this could be a good option.

I'd rather not add a fourth value only for transformation or migration purposes. However, if we have to add one, I'd support the suggestion of using cpf rather than using e.g. other which would only open a can of worms... ;-)

[fordmadox]

Right, I think that something generic, like "cpfType", or even "agent" could work. Similar to how EAD has <name/>, which can function as a generic option when it is unknown whether an entity is a person, a corporate body, work, etc., I'd suggest adding "agent" to the targetType list rather than defaulting to "person" in the conversion script when the type cannot be inferred. This would also keep the terminology aligned with RiC, and might also open up possibilities, in the future, for having other targetTypes, like "instantiation" (although I still need to look at the ontology to understand why that is distinct from "record resource").

[fordmadox]

I'll go with a parameterized option for now in the transformation, but I still vote for adding a new option like "agent"... I think 😄

[SJagodzinski]

EAC-CPF January 2021 meeting outcome:

Confirmed to add value “agent” to @targetType.

[ailie-s]

Tag Library Text:

Summary: Required attribute within <targetEntity> which identifies the type of entity that is related to the CPF entity being described. Use value "agent" only for migration from EAC-CPF 2010 to EAC 2.x Values: agent, corporateBody, family, function, person, resource

[kerstarno]

Tested as part of Schema Team's schema testing:

• @targetType is a required attribute in <targetEntity>
• It can have the values "agent", "corporateBody", "family", "function", "person", or "resource"
• Its data type is token

The above applies to both schemas, RNG and XSD.

The attribute is ready.