Closed melanieWacker closed 10 years ago
I think it would make sense to keep these as properties. From a modeling standpoint it seems odd to say that a property of an item is "text" or "still image", rather those represent what the things are. You will have to forgive my naivete with MODS, but it seems like the list of types is controlled and therefor we would have a good list of starting classes. As a catch-all, we could also coin a supra-class called "X" (i.e. CreativeWork)
mixterj said: "I think it would make sense to keep these as properties."
did you mean: "I think it would make sense to keep these as classes"?
raydAtLC
Yes, I did meant to day keep them as classes.
Working group call 1/29/2014: The working group members on the call agreed with the approach taken. As a next step, I suggest we post a message to the larger MODS RDF list for a last chance to comment, but otherwise consider this issue resolved.
Message was sent to MODS RDF group with no opposing responses to the suggestion to consider this issue resolved.
MODS XML uses values from a controlled list for the typeOfResource element. In the LC MODS RDF ontology this is currently being represented as classes, but defining properties for each resource types would have been another option. For background see: Development of a MODS RDF Ontology : Discussion Points Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress, November 4, 2013
1) Does this group agree with the decision made? 2) Other suggestions?