Were there a method for describing the "subject" of a work/image/collection, there would not be enough classes in the VRA ontology for describing the ~types~ of subjects that are described using VRA Core 4. VRA Core 4 places these values in vc:subjectSet/vc:subject/vc:term/@type.
To accommodate subject types from VRA-XML, our VRA-RDF would either have to set up each subject as a local resource with a local URI, or create blank nodes for each subject. Was that consciously rejected when creating the ontology?
Not accommodating the full vra:subjectSet data means there will be data lost when creating VRA-RDF from legacy data.
Were there a method for describing the "subject" of a work/image/collection, there would not be enough classes in the VRA ontology for describing the ~types~ of subjects that are described using VRA Core 4. VRA Core 4 places these values in vc:subjectSet/vc:subject/vc:term/@type.
To accommodate subject types from VRA-XML, our VRA-RDF would either have to set up each subject as a local resource with a local URI, or create blank nodes for each subject. Was that consciously rejected when creating the ontology?
Not accommodating the full vra:subjectSet data means there will be data lost when creating VRA-RDF from legacy data.