This is a bit provocative, but as I felt I had to create an issue specifically for the problems I have noted while investigating bias here (sorry I should probably paste bit of my comment here but I'm missing time now).
There are plenty concepts used there, which would probably better fit the ethnicity as it is defined at https://linked.art/model/actor/#ethnicity.
For example "Blood" may be seen as a nationality ("Refers to the artwork of the North American Indians belonging to Blood tribe of the Blackfoot.") but probably if rather fit the level above ("Blackfoot"). (btw @azaroth42 I'm using this link as the one I could find quickest, but that pages seems to mix the tribe and the body fluid!)
"Aragonese" was a nationality once but it's not anymore, and its description in terms of "style and culture [...] bound by common ethnicity and language" matches better ethnicity.
And certainly "Parisian" has never match the notion of nationality. I reckon "nationality" is mentioned in the original AAT concept. But that feels like wrong vocabulary design in the first place.
It's not that I would oppose using AAT's weakly defined nationalities in Linked Art, but for the sake of interoperability it doesn't feel right to use them in a framework of nationality and ethnicity that is presented with much more precise (and exclusive) notions.
Update documentation to clarify that if nationality vs ethnicity is not known then it is quite acceptable to not have a metatype at all, and that different organizations can and will make different decisions.
This is a bit provocative, but as I felt I had to create an issue specifically for the problems I have noted while investigating bias here (sorry I should probably paste bit of my comment here but I'm missing time now).
The issue manifests itself further when looking at LUX nationalities at https://lux.collections.yale.edu/view/results/concepts?q=%7B%22AND%22%3A%5B%7B%22classification%22%3A%7B%22name%22%3A%22nationality%22%7D%7D%5D%7D
There are plenty concepts used there, which would probably better fit the ethnicity as it is defined at https://linked.art/model/actor/#ethnicity. For example "Blood" may be seen as a nationality ("Refers to the artwork of the North American Indians belonging to Blood tribe of the Blackfoot.") but probably if rather fit the level above ("Blackfoot"). (btw @azaroth42 I'm using this link as the one I could find quickest, but that pages seems to mix the tribe and the body fluid!) "Aragonese" was a nationality once but it's not anymore, and its description in terms of "style and culture [...] bound by common ethnicity and language" matches better ethnicity. And certainly "Parisian" has never match the notion of nationality. I reckon "nationality" is mentioned in the original AAT concept. But that feels like wrong vocabulary design in the first place.
It's not that I would oppose using AAT's weakly defined nationalities in Linked Art, but for the sake of interoperability it doesn't feel right to use them in a framework of nationality and ethnicity that is presented with much more precise (and exclusive) notions.