best 'dc map' for Geographic Features Discussed?

uwlib-mig / schemasProject

Record and reuse metadata-creation guidance for UWL digital collections

1 stars 0 forks source link

best 'dc map' for Geographic Features Discussed? #28

Closed briesenberg07 closed 2 years ago

briesenberg07 commented 2 years ago

spatial isn't a fit because these are features, not locations
subject isn't a great fit because features discussed may not be primary focus of resource
none?

gerontakos commented 2 years ago

dct:spatial only needs to be "spatial characteristics" I believe. There's no rdfs:range, just a suggestion. But there's always coverage (in both namespaces, right?) -- that's a possibility. I think I would choose a "closeMatch" in the "mapping" rather than "None." But it's just mapper's judgment! Whatever the "correct" choice is, I think there's a limitation in cdm. I believe there's only spatial and coverage. Maybe it's not a limitation but a liberation: everything goes. There's like a hundred words stating nothing decisive. If we had a registry, you could state everything with accuracy in the "property file": the cdm-dc mapping is a closeMatch. There is a better match (you could state what it is). Etc.

briesenberg07 commented 2 years ago

Thank you for sharing your thoughts @gerontakos !

Right, dct:spatial is simply defined as "spatial characteristics of the resource".

Hmm... I'm not sure what a spatial characteristic is. Is it a location, as I originally interpreted it? Is it something like "cramped" or "crowded"? Is it something else? All of the above?

The fact that it is a subprop of dct:coverage is helpful. This property has a range that includes dctclass:Period, dctclass:Jurisdiction (I feel confident saying that a building is neither a period or a jurisdiction), and dctclass:Location. "A spatial region or named place."

OK. I'll call a building a "named place." That's good enough for me, for now!

field settings > DC map = spatial

gerontakos commented 2 years ago

Although it's of limited usefulness for metadata professionals, it's always worth consulting (you probably already have) https://www.dublincore.org/resources/userguide/creating_metadata/ . Also Hillman's precursor from 200, https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/usageguide/ . At least those documents have a stamp-of-authority.