What's the range for "type" property?

[arwenhutt]

@ucsdlib/domm needs to discuss what the correct range for "type" is. It's currently line 126 in the DD and listed as dc:DCMIType, which doesn't seem correct since we've developed a local type list with fun things like "notated movement"

[arwenhutt]

(I'm not able to assign labels to this, I think it might be a permission thing)

[arwenhutt]

Whoops, that was definitely user error ;)

[lsitu]

@arwenhutt: What's the different use for Type and Format (typeOfResource?)? It looks like the CVs are over wrapping.

[mcritchlow]

@arwenhutt let me look into the label permissions thing. sorry about that

[remerjohnson]

@arwenhutt: I've put the controlled values for our current dams:typeOfResource field into the CVs tab of the data dictionary under 'type'. I imagine we now change that range to Literal?

I think that works, but as @lsitu said, 'format' is... not so clear. Reading the DCMI spec, is this intended to be similar to what is captured now as dams:formatName (e.g. 'MP3') and dams:duration? Which I imagine PCDM captures somewhere else in the technical metadata? I can't think of a controlled value list for this that isn't likely captured somewhere else. DC11 Format

[mcritchlow]

@remerjohnson @lsitu - I wonder if we should setup a ticket to explicitly look into the technical metadata extracted by the CC stack for each of our known/common file types? Might that help clarify the issues noted above?

[lsitu]

@mcritchlow Yes, I think it's good to know about it first. @remerjohnson Here is the technical metadata defined in CC for each file types: https://github.com/projecthydra/hydra-works/tree/master/lib/hydra/works/characterization/schema .

[mcritchlow]

@lsitu - 👍

for the separate ticket, i was referring to actually running a few of each of our file types through CC and confirming the extracted technical metadata is populated as expected via FITS. But your schema link may be all @remerjohnson needs for now.

[mcritchlow]

23 is setup for further investigation into technical metadata extraction.

[remerjohnson]

Okay. I do see in base_schema.rb, there is reference to PREMIS.hasFormatName which, when looking at the ontology link, doesn't specify what is expected, but I can assume those would basically be MIMEtypes? I guess we can just wait for the result of the test you set up in #23 Thanks!

[remerjohnson]

Per meeting discussion, we agreed that the unresolved technical metadata issues from this ticket are contained in #23 and elsewhere.

Since we have good CVs for the range of "type" for @lsitu to work with, I'm closing this out.