search

WGBH / PBCore2.0

Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
http://www.pbcore.org
33 stars 9 forks source link

relationType Vocabulary #71

Open AllisonAnn opened 10 years ago

AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

I think that we should remove hasFormat/isFormatOf and hasPart/isPartOf from the recommended vocabulary.

Has Format is built into the pbcore data model already. It is the natural relation between the Intellectual content and Instantiation Classes.

hasPart has been introduced into the model, as a means for expressing a hierarchical relationship between two Intellectual Content records, at the element level (right? I think that's how it works).

So, I think that having these terms available in the relationType vocabulary is redundant, and potentially confusing to people.

awead commented 10 years ago

I guess this calls into question what relation type is used for. You've got two: instantiationRelationType and pbcoreRelationType. I see these elements as a way to indicate these relationships outside the pbcore schema. So if I want to say my pbcore record is part of something else, I can just point to it.

For example, I've used them to indicate that a PBCore document is part of a collection and series in EAD. I can use relation type to indicate that along with a URI pointing to the collection and series.

On the other hand, you should be able to do any this using RDF, so the relation type elements could be removed completely once PBCore is fully expressed in RDF.

AllisonAnn commented 10 years ago

Good points. I see relationType in both classes as useful to describing relationships (whole/part, see/see also) between Intellectual content records, and between Instantiation records, as well as relating Intellectual content records to outside relationships.

Maybe stronger documentation/explanation about what the hasPart element is supposed to be doing, that is different from what the relationType=hasPart element does, would help. I confess, I'm still a bit confused about it.

But, I think there is a strong case to be made that the pbcoreRelationType vocabulary in the Intellectual content class doesn't need a hasFormat term, as the relationship between the Intellectual content class and the Instantiation class is the hasFormat relation.

I can see though, that hasFormat might still be useful at the instantiationRelationType level, to document a relationship between re-formatted or migrated material.

ugh.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Adam Wead notifications@github.com wrote:

I guess this calls into question what relation type is used for. You've got two: instantiationRelationType and pbcoreRelationType. I see these elements as a way to indicate these relationships outside the pbcore schema. So if I want to say my pbcore record is part of something else, I can just point to it.

For example, I've used them to indicate that a PBCore document is part of a collection and series in EAD. I can use relation type to indicate that along with a URI pointing to the collection and series.

On the other hand, you should be able to do any this using RDF, so the relation type elements could be removed completely once PBCore is fully expressed in RDF.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/WGBH/PBCore2.0/issues/71#issuecomment-52771880.