search

earthcubearchitecture-ecresourcereg / ecrro

EarthCube Resource Registry Ontology
1 stars 1 forks source link

Need registry contributor representation #19

Open smrgeoinfo opened 5 years ago

smrgeoinfo commented 5 years ago

we need a way to record who contributed the content for registry records (registyContributor); none of the schema.org properties work and the contributor properties in the current version are contributors for the resource content, not the metadata content. EC Catalog Record (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ecrro.owl/ECCRO_0000213) should have a dc:contributor property to document the agent who entered the resource description.

rduerr commented 5 years ago

Actually since all Resources are CreativeWorks, all Resources already can have a contributor - the domain of contributor is creativeWork or event and the range can be an Organization or Person or Role or Text or URL. So no changes are needed.

smrgeoinfo commented 5 years ago

But there needs to be a way do distinguish a contributor related to the resource from the contributor for the registry item that describes the resource. Who did the metadata vs. who contributed to creating the resource.

rduerr commented 5 years ago

I take it that distinguishing them by the ARK of the respective object they are related to isn't enough?

smrgeoinfo commented 5 years ago

I think the problem is that currently we are not generating ARKs for the catalogRecord and for the describedResource. Ideally the described resource has an existing identifier that is the sdo:identifier in the catalog record. We're partly hamstrung by the lack of clarity on this in schema.org

rduerr commented 5 years ago

OK, just to clarify the identifier for the EC Catalog Record is an ARK; but the identifier for the ECResource needs to be provided by the person who fills out the form? What do you do if they don't actually have one?

smrgeoinfo commented 5 years ago

I think EC will need to decide if they want to get in the business of assigning identifiers for resources. If so, it would be worth considering if those should be DOI's, or ARKs with a different shoulder prefix. I'd say that's a policy decision for TAC?

smrgeoinfo commented 5 years ago

see #31