search

american-art / PUAM

Princeton University Art Museum
Other
4 stars 4 forks source link

Introducing BIBO ontology to better map bibliographical information? #7

Closed YinyiUSC closed 8 years ago

YinyiUSC commented 8 years ago

While CIDOC-CRM does not cover bibliographical information well (a lot of the publication data be mapped as general information), I was wondering if you would like to use BIBO ontology in the models.

This issue should also be discussed with other museums since we want to keep the mapping consistent (i.e. if we end up using BIBO for PUAM, we'll also use it for other museums)

caknoblock commented 8 years ago

What specific information is not covered by CIDOC-CRM?

On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Yinyi Chen notifications@github.com wrote:

While CIDOC-CRM does not cover bibliographical information well, I was wondering if you would like to use BIBO ontology in the models.

This issue should also be discussed with other museums since we want to keep the mapping consistent (i.e. if we end up using BIBO for PUAM, we'll also use it for other museums)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/american-art/PUAM/issues/7.

VladimirAlexiev commented 8 years ago

For the Getty vocabs we used BIBO since there's very little bibliographic info. If there's a lot of info, FRBRoo is the other option

caknoblock commented 8 years ago

The conclusion at the Getty meeting the other day was that we could just use the core CIDOC-CRM vocabulary without any extension since our bibliographic entries were very simple.

On Apr 8, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Vladimir Alexiev notifications@github.com wrote:

For the Getty vocabs we used BIBO since there's very little bibliographic info. If there's a lot of info, FRBRoo is the other option

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/american-art/PUAM/issues/7#issuecomment-207610043

cathryng commented 8 years ago

yes.