Closed VladimirAlexiev closed 1 month ago
See field depiction
(mapped to foaf:depiction
). The spec further says
Applications MAY limit the fields
notation
and/ordepiction
to lists of a single element or ignore all preceding elements of these lists
so applications can choose to have at most one image per concept. Additional information about an image (size, license...) is out of the scope of JSKOS.
I was just about to say "stupid question" :-) Saw it in https://gbv.github.io/jskos/context.json as used in https://github.com/gbv/coli-conc-licenses/blob/master/licenses.json and rendered at https://coli-conc.gbv.de/publications/licenses/ ("Badge").
How do you handle primary vs secondary images?
foaf:img
(primary) vs foaf:depiction
(any). foaf makes an unreasonable ontological commitment "the img property is only used with representations of people (ie. instances of Person)", but I think that can be safely ignoredlist of URI
, order must be preserved?
@set
, so repositories will have trouble preserving the order...@set
: rdf:List
is quite unwieldy)depiction: {
@id: "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction",
@type: "@id",
@container: "@set"
}
There is no distinction between primary vs secondary images. I'd expect multiple images to interchangeably illustrate a think: a client can choose whether to show any, all or none of the images listed in depiction
. Our main client Cocoda does not support images because our vocabularies don't include images yet.
Including images often comes with license requirements. Maybe it's better to change JSKOS by addition of a richer Image data type, e.g. such as specified by IIIF. We could name it image
and deprecate depiction
. See also https://github.com/gbv/wikidata-jskos/issues/57
Getty and CHIN Nomenclature (#94) have some images that illustrate concepts. How can JSKOS represent this?