draft a GenreFacetType ontology collecting most of PRONOM, NFO, UDFR

[awoods]

We should establish a set of initial "committers" for this PCDM Git-repository. Otherwise, what is the vetting approach for updates/additions such as this?

[acoburn]

@awoods regarding committers for this, I'm inclined to cast a pretty wide net, at least initially.

As for this particular contribution, I find it to be remarkably similar to an ontology that I maintain for our local repository https://github.com/AmherstCollege/acdc-ontology/blob/master/rdf/objectTypes.rdf (we use skos:mappingRelation instead of owl:sameAs, and we're more focused on Getty AAT, LOC, schema.org and opengraph). Either way, I'd be supportive of something like this, especially since I'd much rather rely on a community supported mapping than maintain our own.

/cc @escowles

[barmintor]

@acoburn interesting to see some little differences that I am guessing emerge from arriving from a PRONOM/digipres vector vs Getty/cataloguing one. Do you agree that there's value in preserving the narrower scope of this document? If skos relations are a better description of the lineage here, do you want to add a commit to that branch with the change? I'd like the commit history to give appropriate credt for authorship!

[acoburn]

@barmintor I prefer skos, because it doesn't imply the strong assertions of identity that accompany owl:sameAs.

[awoods]

On a side note, what do you think about a "call for committers" message to the lists? @escowles, @acoburn, @barmintor ??

Maybe taking nominations for 5 people?

[acoburn]

That sounds like a great idea!

[barmintor]

This draft should also include:

• mappings to LoC and Getty concepts where relevant
• guidance on usage of the terms

[azaroth42]

Can we keep contributions separate from the core in a different directory structure somehow?

[acoburn]

such as a ./pcdm-core directory and a ./pcdm-ext directory?

[azaroth42]

That sounds good to me. My concern is confusing adopters with what counts as PCDM (which at the moment is not very much) and what is suggested extensions that could be adopted or ignored without peril.

[escowles]

:+1: to a pcdm-ext directory to hold non-core stuff. I agree it makes sense to make it clear what's core PCDM and what's more peripheral. The file use vocab could potentially go in the ext directory, too.

[mjgiarlo]

:+1: and I've also seen contrib used similarly but w/e.

[awoods]

:+1: ./pcdm-ext for the extras. Should the core be at the top-level or in its own directory?

[acoburn]

Putting models.rdf into a ./pcdm-core directory would give (possibly) a stronger indication to someone browsing github that the core models are located there. Keeping it at the root level does so implicitly, and I'm fine with that if you think that's sufficiently clear.

[awoods]

There is an interesting analogy with what is being discussed on the Fedora side (ontology), questioning where the core ontology goes and where the extra ontologies go. So far, the discussion has been leaning towards a separate Git repository for the extras. Maybe it is simpler, however, to just split them into directories. In any case, consistency across these efforts would be a treat.

[ruebot]

Should we come back to this one, and vote/merge it?

[escowles]

Yes, I think we should resolve this -- I've created a PR to add a new OfficeDocument supertype of Presentation, Spreadsheet and a newly-added WordProcessingDocument: https://github.com/barmintor/pcdm/pull/6

[awoods]

Can someone champion this PR to bring it to resolution?

[ruebot]

So, we just need to resolve this before we can merge this? Am I understanding that correctly?

[escowles]

This has dragged on too long, so I've closed barmintor/pcdm#6 and I'm :+1: on merging this as-is. Moving the file to pcdm-ext/file-format-types.rdf would be a good improvement, though.

[barmintor]

Esme how would you feel about breaking the file refactoring and office type into 1 pr and the inheritance and word processing type changes into another (or two)? I feel like we're throwing out two uncontested improvements with the bathwater that wants more discussion. On Jul 24, 2015 8:21 AM, "Esmé Cowles" notifications@github.com wrote:

This has dragged on too long, so I've closed barmintor/pcdm#6 https://github.com/barmintor/pcdm/pull/6 and I'm [image: :+1:] on merging this as-is. Moving the file to pcdm-ext/file-format-types.rdf would be a good improvement, though.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/pull/2#issuecomment-124501915.

[escowles]

Ben, I've opened https://github.com/barmintor/pcdm/pull/7 for just the move, since that's the thing that complicates discussing other changes. Once that's merged, I can open a couple of other PRs for the other changes.

[acoburn]

What is the status of this PR?

[ruebot]

I think we're good to vote on it now since we have @escowles PR merged into @barmintor's PR.

[awoods]

I think a thumbs-up from @escowles and @barmintor would seal the deal.

[azaroth42]

Agree, I think all other objections were resolved with pcdm-ext.

[ruebot]

...having yet to vote on this. :+1:

[escowles]

:+1:

[barmintor]

+1

[awoods]

This is ready to go. I will squash and commit it unless someone else is already on it.

[ruebot]

@awoods all you :smile:

[awoods]

Resolved with: https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/commit/c6b4cd76aea768b6a6bbbde16d25304d8c754bbb

[ruebot]

@awoods shall we update #24?

[awoods]

Sounds like a great idea, @ruebot. If you create the xsl, I will push it to pcdm.org... along with file-format-types.rdf.

[ruebot]

@awoods cool. i'll see if i can get that done by end of day.

[ruebot]

...and I just noticed something as I was working on the stylesheet. This owl, all the other ones are rdfs. Should we make this rdfs?