Open davidamichelson opened 2 months ago
We may want to discuss this. I don't think these are subject classifications. "Genre" is closer, which is why I used dcterms:type as the relation predicate -- though I'm not convinced that's exactly right, either, since for a manuscript that might refer more to its type (e.g., Physical Object or Manuscript) rather than to its contents.
So, on the one hand, I don't think we are doing subject classification. And, on the other, we need to decide what to call Wright's classifications and where in the documentation we want to put it
Possibly should be discussed as part of the Header section? (cf. #356 )
We will use this but note that we use Wright's genre terms rather than LCSH. To do here:
@wlpotter Can you revise this one please? 1.5. Subject Classifications [UNDER REVISION] SMBL reproduces the subject classifications used by Wright in his catalogue. A further description of this taxonomy will be added here.