Skip to content
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

Issue #28 - Does the "Industry" field can be modeled with the occupation pattern? #28

Closed
stephenhart8 opened this issue Nov 8, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
modeling This issue concerns how we organize the information semantically

Comments

@stephenhart8
Copy link
Collaborator

stephenhart8 commented Nov 8, 2019

In the v.1.5 of the TM, the Industry field is modeled as a simple E55 Type linked directly to the E39 Actor.
But I just realized that the F51 Pursuit in the CIDOC extension FRBRoo has the scope:

This class comprises periods of continuous activity of an Actor in a specific professional or
creative domain or field

That would simply a lot the model, with the professional activity of a person and a group modeled the same way.

Would that also work with the artistic activity of groups of artists?
For example the Group of Seven is dedicated to the painting of Landscapes. Could the groups have as an F51 Pursuit "Landscaping"?

@stephenhart8 stephenhart8 added the modeling This issue concerns how we organize the information semantically label Nov 8, 2019
@KarineLeonardBrouillet
Copy link
Collaborator

I think it does work yes especially considering how the examples F51 Pursuit are of artists and a Library

@Habennin
Copy link

yes it's appropriate

@stephenhart8
Copy link
Collaborator Author

If nobody wants to add something, I will close the issue.

@Habennin
Copy link

+1

@illip
Copy link
Collaborator

illip commented Nov 15, 2019

You have my blessing. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
modeling This issue concerns how we organize the information semantically
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants