Open DavidCrosswellGSQ opened 4 years ago
@KellyVance @johnkirsten
I have added commodity - @KellyVance are we using the GSQ commodity vocabulary or the CGI one https://vocabs.ands.org.au/viewById/55
@johnkirsten you will need to map the commodities entered in the QDEX Reports metadata to the commodity vocabulary.
"Lodger" and "Submitter" terms are too close in meaning. Let's fix this up for once and all. In previous discussions with @AdrianStead we removed lodger
Thoughts?
@dxwell I think we will use a GSQ vocabulary. But it will most likely be a modification of the current one. @nicholascar did a comparison of the two commodity lists, which will be a good place to start but I think we can come up with something more accurate and comprehensive than what is currently available (whilst removing some of the redundancy).
In QDEX Lodger is mostly populated with an individuals name whilst SubmitBy is mostly populated with an Org name. Not sure of the Lodger is meant to be an employee of the submitting Org. Do you want me to mark Lodger as no longer required (ie this field will not be migrated from QDEX reports)?
@johnkirsten we will migrate Lodger from QDEX Reports, but it will be secondary metadata captured in the JSON document as a key-value pair.
Have added Submitter
as a CKAN form field, mapped to prov:wasAttributedTo (in the PROV ontology).
Can we tie the value for the submitter
field to a drop-down list of orgs? Also, we may be able to find a more specialised property than prov:wasAttributedTo
that better conveys original owner, like just dct:creator
or perhaps the ISO19115 originator
that we just published.
@johnkirsten we will migrate Lodger from QDEX Reports, but it will be secondary metadata captured in the JSON document as a key-value pair.
I've updated the mapping document in SP to reflect this
Add: