search

duraspace / pcdm

Portland Common Data Model
http://pcdm.org/models
Apache License 2.0
90 stars 11 forks source link

ore:aggregates (wiki) vs pcdm:hasRelatedObject (ontology) #48

Open azaroth42 opened 8 years ago

azaroth42 commented 8 years ago

... which is correct?

I'm in favor of pcdm:hasRelatedObject. I think this was the decision way back when, but in moving the docs around from pillar to post, they seem to have reverted.

escowles commented 8 years ago

+1 to pcdm:hasRelatedObject, and siding with the ontology when the wiki differs.

jpstroop commented 8 years ago

yes, I think pcdm:hasRelatedObject is where this landed

tpendragon commented 8 years ago

...Really? When did that happen? At the end of the Portland talks I believe it was ore:aggregates. To reiterate, why the choice for hasRelatedObject?

tpendragon commented 8 years ago

So the history I can find is:

  1. Portland talks said if you have related objects, ore:aggregates. That way you can order alongside hasMember items, and both are aggregated.
  2. Hydra::PCDM work started, and the method was called #related_objects. Ticket opened at https://github.com/projecthydra-labs/hydra-pcdm/issues/14 and predicate conversation ensued.
  3. Diagram updated to have hasRelatedObject, ore:aggregates was never really discussed again.
  4. https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/pull/6 Added to ontology.
escowles commented 8 years ago

I believe the argument was this: https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/pull/4/files#r31881404

Basically, creating our own property to define the semantics as we intend them, since the ore:aggregates description is much broader.

tpendragon commented 8 years ago

Alright. We'll have to update hydra-pcdm, but that's fine.

tpendragon commented 8 years ago

@escowles When this gets :+1:'d and fixed, mind making a ticket in hydra-pcdm?