search

tdwg / cd

Collection Descriptions
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
23 stars 10 forks source link

hasInstitution limitations #277

Open wouteraddink opened 3 years ago

wouteraddink commented 3 years ago

playing with the wikidata instance I quickly run into the issue that I want to define for my collection not hasInstitution but more exact the institution that is responsible for providing access "accessprovider", which is usually an institution but could also be a private person. If I think in ELViS usage then I think it is more important to know who is responsible for providing access to the physical or digital collection than who is the owner of the material. Access provider as opposed to collection "owner" which may be the same but not necessarily. I think hasInstitution is not exact enough. Is that solvable with the current model?

mtrekels commented 3 years ago

To be honest, the origin of 'hasInstitution' is a bit artificial, by a first attempt of modelling the CD in the wikibase (relational vs. graph-like modelling). So I think the property should be called cd:organisationalUnit, and pointing to an 'item' that contains the name, address, identifier...

Regardless of this, I think you're right that we are missing 'reposiblePerson' or 'responsibleEntity' in the core fields. Looking at the data in GRSciColl, there is a field for 'contacts', on top of the identifier for the institution.

What do you think @mswoodburn @rondlg ?

wouteraddink commented 3 years ago

responsibleEntity might work, which could then either be an institution, an organisational unit or a person