New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NPGObjConXrefs:DisplayOrder #34

Closed
steads opened this Issue Jul 3, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@steads

steads commented Jul 3, 2016

DisplayOrder: This is a system implementation instruction and as such has no need for a mapping.

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Jul 14, 2016

From my work with the Getty, I disagree. Sometimes art researchers are very particular about the order in which things are listed, and this has semantics.
Some examples of objects with several associations having the same Role. Maybe the order of these associations is significant.

  • objectId=4638 has 34 "Sitters" (eg the order could be left-to-right)
  • objectId=17216 has 159 "Sitters"
  • objectId=118068 has 2 "Possible Attributions" (eg first Attribution could be more likely than the second)
  • objectId=123605 has 3 "Associated persons"

Even for different roles, art researchers sometimes want to see them in a particular order.

This can be mapped as E13_Attribute_Assignment over the relation, using the extension property crmx:display_order we've defined for CONA and JPGM

@steads

This comment has been minimized.

steads commented Jul 14, 2016

If there are semantics in the order then this needs to be made clear by using the appropriate CRM mechanism to show the semantics. So for instance the two "Sitters" examples above would be best modelled using CRMdig and the "possible attributions" by using CRMinf.

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Jul 14, 2016

What properties from CRMdig and CRMinf express ordering?

@steads

This comment has been minimized.

steads commented Jul 14, 2016

The semantics are not actually about ordering. The ordering is being used to express the real semantics. So in the sitters example the semantics is about who is depicted adjacent to other subjects. The relative strength of possible attributions is about levels of believe.

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Aug 1, 2016

Now you're ascribing meaning to the DisplayOrder field that may or may not be there. Maybe sitters are listed by importance, how would you know.
I'm just saying if that field is present, we should emit it, because at least in some cases it has meaning.

@steads

This comment has been minimized.

steads commented Aug 1, 2016

In the CRM if we do not understand it we do not map it. This is axiomatic to the development of the CRM. Local solutions are fine. See our forthcoming CAA paper for guidelines.

@VladimirAlexiev

This comment has been minimized.

VladimirAlexiev commented Aug 2, 2016

Getty asked me to map it for CONA and JPGM, so they value it. As I said above, art researchers want the particular order.

@bsnikhila bsnikhila closed this Apr 30, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment