Open zozlak opened 6 months ago
Could you please explain why?
We are aiming for a dedicated vocabulary for acdh:hasSubject and then we would have something similar to acdh:hasLanguage or acdh:hasLicense, which make use of skos:Concept. What would be different in the case with acdh:hasSubject?
Btw: We had a class 'Concept' in the early days of the ontology and decided to kick it out at some point
We were thinking with Seta about a different way of defining vocabularies for properties. Now we need:
On the other hand we already have in place an URI checking mechanism where for a given ARCHE class we define a set of allowed external authority files (e.g. a Person can be identified by an URI in the acdhi, viaf, gnd, etc. namespace). This method allows to easily combine multiple sources and it doesn't require to materialize all possible values as ARCHE resources. Just as the rules system is based on ARCHE class being a range of a given property, a distinct set of rules requires a dedicated class to be defined. What's worth noting it would be just a helper class like dozens we have already for defining property inheritance and cardinality constrains.
Anyway, at the moment acdh:hasSubject
is a datatype property and this will affect us only when we will switch it to an object one.
Having a separate class for the acdh:hasSubject range will allow us to define separate doorkeeper check rules for the values.
https://github.com/acdh-oeaw/arche-doorkeeper/issues/32 https://github.com/acdh-oeaw/arche-ref-sources/issues/13