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

Consider adding subclass for government document classification numbers to bf:Classification #55

Closed
RobertRohr opened this issue Jun 13, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@RobertRohr
Copy link

Consider adding a class for government document classification numbers as a subclass of bf:Classification.
Justification: Libraries that are depositories for federal, state, and international government documents use government document classification schemes such as Superintendent of Documents classification system (sudocs) and United Nations document series symbols (undocs).

@kefo kefo added the id-fix label May 6, 2020
@kefo
Copy link
Member

kefo commented Jun 24, 2021

All members of the [Classification Source sheme]{https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/classSchemes) are now of bf:Classification type to advertise their usability in Bibframe.

@kefo kefo closed this as completed Jun 24, 2021
@NancyL
Copy link

NancyL commented Jul 19, 2022

so to be clear on the implementation of this...
We would have:
bf:classification [a bf:Classification ;
rdfs:type http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/classSchemes/sudocs ;
but then???
with the other schemes we would use bf:classificationPortion and bf:itemPortion, but these divisions don't really exist in these numbers. But it would be nice for all to align. So maybe bf:itemPortion only?
or just an rdfs:label? It would map to the MARC 086 (no $b, so no issue there)

@RobertRohr
Copy link
Author

Considering that in government document classification schemes the agency number is the class number, I would say we could use both bf:classificationPortion and bf:itemPortion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants