You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The class Involvement is referenced from EditorialObject via hasContributor or hasPublisher or hasCreator . While the latter two (hasPublisher, hasCreator) are relicts from the time before Involvement did exist and both pointed to Agent, the first (hasContributor) was introduced, when the class Involvement was still named Role.
Proposed changes:
For the current modelling, the property that links EditorialObject and ProductionJob to Involvement should be named hasInvolvement according to our naming conventions.
hasCreator should be kept as property of Annotation , but it should link to Agent , not to Involvement , as it currently does.
hasPublisher should be removed, as it is fully replaced by an Involvement classified as a publisher.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Good question, thank you @RendersKoen !
I think an inverse property would make sense, as it underpins the notion of Involvement as an entity in its own right.
The name could be isInvolvementIn as you suggested is a good candidate, but isInvolvementFor, isInvolvedIn, hasEditorialObject or relatesTo would be options, too. The EditorialCommittee will discuss and propose.
The class
Involvement
is referenced fromEditorialObject
viahasContributor
orhasPublisher
orhasCreator
. While the latter two (hasPublisher
,hasCreator
) are relicts from the time beforeInvolvement
did exist and both pointed toAgent
, the first (hasContributor
) was introduced, when the classInvolvement
was still namedRole
.Proposed changes:
For the current modelling, the property that links
EditorialObject
andProductionJob
toInvolvement
should be namedhasInvolvement
according to our naming conventions.hasCreator
should be kept as property ofAnnotation
, but it should link toAgent
, not toInvolvement
, as it currently does.hasPublisher
should be removed, as it is fully replaced by anInvolvement
classified as a publisher.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: