search

lcnetdev / bibframe-ontology

Repository for versions of BIBFRAME ontology.
http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
48 stars 7 forks source link

Remove property bf:mount #27

Open sfolsom opened 6 years ago

sfolsom commented 6 years ago

Justification: bf:part and bf:Mount are sufficient, allowing a single pattern for parts.

We believe that a Mount is a part of a resource, similar to Frame, Binding, etc. We therefore propose defining a Mount class (note the semantics differ from bf:Mount, which is a material) alongside these other classes, using bf:part to link the bibliographic resource to its part.

[This recommendation was made on behalf of the LD4P Art & Rare Materials BIBFRAME Ontology Extension (https://github.com/LD4P/arm).]

ntra00 commented 4 years ago

bf:part is actually to be used with language, to note which part of a resource has a particular langauage, as in "librettos". We're proposing that bf:mount be made a subproperty of bf:material, and bf:Mount a subclass of bf:Material. We're also including the emulsion property/class set in this fix, so that any materials info can all use the same pattern.

jak473 commented 4 years ago

Thanks for the response, Nate. I think the original request should read that bf:mount could/should be deprecated for bf:hasPart (not bf:part). This would allow for a single pattern where components of a resource are using a more generic property to relate them. If accepted, bf:hasPart should remove the expected values and would want to change the definition to: "Resource that is included either physically or logically with, in or attached to the described resource" or something like that.

What is the thinking behind making Mount a subclass of Material? A Mount would be composed of a Material but is it a material in-and-of itself?

ntra00 commented 4 years ago

Still thinking...