-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Replace pcdm:hasMember with ore:Aggregates? #63
Comments
So I talked quickly with @escowles about this, and the one issue I ran into was I see a few ways forward: A) Don't support related objects. This would be unfortunate, but it's arguable that it's by definition not structural metadata. Thoughts? |
C. 👎 to throwing the baby out of the house along with the bath. |
|
What is the baby that is being thrown out here? What is being lost? |
@ruebot I think we would keep the hasMember definition in the ontology the same:
@ajs6f The baby is the distinction between hasMember and hasRelatedObject — losing that by using ore:aggregates instead. |
Why does option B not resolve that? |
The proposal (and resolution B) seems to assume that @ruebot's point that we don't seem to have a single definition is a good one. Putting some thought into that problem may help us reach consensus about this one. |
Creates as a response to this from @acoburn:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: