Classification section

[richardofsussex]

You have a classification section: This sits somewhere between a formal classification system and a textual description. I could model it as: but this feels wrong in several ways. It is the classic LA "id - type - _label" structure that appears throughout, but it is missing the all-important "id" (= URL). It also misuses "type" (which is meant to be a type declared in the context document, I think) and demotes the actual data to be an explanatory label. However, in order to do better than this, I need a steer from you on the value you place on this classification data (we could just drop it), and the extent to which there is a formal ontology underpinning it, which I could refer to/use.

[jpadfield]

One issue is that these two are different ... the first one is a simple type, but the second one is more complex, it could indicate that the work is a member of a group, it could indicate that the creation was influenced by said group, or it is relating to the style, or even the method of production. I think we probably need a steer as to what the "school" is supposed to mean and it is probably an combination of all or several options ...

There is also the overlapping issue of the "category" - department - main floor - from a data user point of view it is also a "type" and should probably be modelled in the same way as the "picture" classification.

If these keywords or types are modelled in different ways it would be hard for a user to know what and how to search for things.

[RGShepherd]

OK: these are the only two kinds of classification we use.

• classification.type:"classification" is a broad object type classification
• calssification.type:"school" denotes that the work is a product of the artistic school specified - it is primarily a strylistic descriptor

(though we have better style / period descriptors in the style.... index).

[richardofsussex]

I'm now picking up 'school' and including a 'type of a type' sub-classification for it, but not doing so for the generic classification:

[richardofsussex]

In relation to Joe's comment above, do you want 'category' to appear something like this? ;-

[richardofsussex]

What about 'function'? What are the semantics of that key?

It looks like a variant classification to me, in which case I can easily add it, along the same lines as 'department'. Please advise. Indeed, 'genre' looks like another potential addition to the classification section.

[RGShepherd]

The data here is not great, and not mapped to external identifiers (and won't be during DDP stage 1); but the aim is that:

• function describes what a painting was used for: possibly http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300191089
• genre describes what the 'kind' of painting it is - portrait, landscape, etc.: possibly http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300191098

[richardofsussex]

Both the AAT concepts you cite are "characteristics of division" (https://www.iskouk.org/resources/Documents/Willarchives/Will2021/glossary.html#characteristic). It's making my brain hurt trying to decide if this is a valid use of such classes.

[richardofsussex]

OK, that's what I've done with those two:

[richardofsussex]

... and legal.status:

[RGShepherd]

Both the AAT concepts you cite are "characteristics of division"

They are; and yet they are parents / ancestors of the kinds of descriptor we're using here; whereas the descendants of http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300056462, e.g., are quite different. Is there a good reason not to use them, even if they are guide terms?

Btw, I think your AAT IDs should omit the /page element of the directory: compare http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300056462 with the LD-enabled https://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300056462

[richardofsussex]

Referring to my comment elsewhere that these AAT URIs specify the 'type's of information found in that statement, I think that I prefer my approach. "Herein you will find information about the function of the artwork, or about its genre." Your approach sort of implies that the concept could form an entry under that characteristic of division - but I don't see how users or software agents could make that connection or, more importantly, do anything useful with it.

[richardofsussex]

... and thanks for the heads-up about the /page in the URLs. I did sort of know - I've been using the AAT web pages as a source of URLs - but hadn't got around to sorting them out. Now done.

[RGShepherd]

Referring to my comment elsewhere that these AAT URIs specify the 'type's of information found in that statement, I think that I prefer my approach. "Herein you will find information about the function of the artwork, or about its genre." Your approach sort of implies that the concept could form an entry under that characteristic of division - but I don't see how users or software agents could make that connection or, more importantly, do anything useful with it.

Agreed. Which means that I think this issue is now resolved.