Page tree
Contents

Suggested schema change

The collection-party relation type hasCollector is currently defined as:

  • hasCollector: has been aggregated by the related party
  • isCollectorOf: has aggregated the related collection

The proposed revised definitions are:

  • hasCollector: has been collected, generated, created or aggregated by the related party
  • isCollectorOf: has collected, generated, created or aggregated the related collection

 

Problem this suggestion addresses

The current list of vocabulary terms and definitions for collection-party relation types does not adequately cover all use cases presented to content providers.   In particular, the current definitions of the hasCollector relation type could be regarded as incomplete or vague in covering the various relation types that may exist between a collection and related party.  For example, a party may be a collector, aggregator, generator or creator of data.  This can make it difficult for providers to determine which is the most appropriate type to assign.  In addition, the current definitions can be problematic for providers cross-walking to RIF-CS from other schema such as ISO19115 and EML where different party-collection types are defined.  

This proposal seeks to address this issue by suggesting a more descriptive definition for the collection-party relation type hasCollector.

 

Identified by

Siddeswara Guru, TERN
Proposal prepared by Gerry Ryder and Siddeswara Guru

 

RIF-CS schema components affected

This proposal suggests a revised definition of the collection-party relation type.  It does not recommend changing the type terms.  This will affect use of the collection-party relation type where it is used to relate Collection and Party registry objects, and where relatedInfo is used to relate a Collection and Party.

registryObject/collection/relatedObject/relation/ @type

registryObject/collection/relatedInfo/relation @type

 

Impact on content providers

The revised definitions are intended to provide greater clarity around the encoding and use of collection-party relation types.  No impact on content providers is envisaged.

Pros

The proposed change will provide a more descriptive and inclusive definition of the collection-party relation type.  It will make it easier for providers to choose the most appropriate type with confidence.  It will also assist those cross-walking to RIF-CS from other metadata schema as the revised definition aligns with terminology commonly used in other metadata standards eg creator.

Cons

While the intent of this proposal is to provide greater clarity around the use of the hasCollector relation type the revised definition may cause some confusion for users that may prefer a narrower rather than broader definition of the type.

 

Technical options

  • The vocabs.xml file will need to be amended to include the new definitions.
  • The vocabularies.html will need to be regenerated to reflect the new definitions.
  • Changes will be required to the Content Providers Guide

                           --http://guides.ands.org.au/rda-cpg/relatedobject

                           --http://guides.ands.org.au/rda-cpg/relatedinfo

 

  • No labels