HI Mike,
Thanks very much for your response. That all makes sense. We may well move from using @encodinganalog to @localType then, as its seems more appropriate for what we do.
> I also agree that creating a shared vocabulary for referencing the parts of a name will be an important part of making archival description function as Linked Data. We would want the same standard to be used across EAC-CPF and EAD, as well as EAC-Functions, when that comes along, etc. As such, it really needs to exist external to those standards, and to be referenced as Ethan suggests from each. If ArchivesHub were to take the lead on creating just such a vocabulary (nudge nudge), it would be a wonderful contribution.
I'm very keen to continue our Linked Data work - we've just made a breakthrough with matching to DBPedia and it's great to see a long list of our names matching to other data. I'll take on board your suggestion!
cheers,
Jane.
On 28 Oct 2013, at 01:51, Michael Rush <[log in to unmask]
wrote:
> Jane,
>
> Your email nicely lays out the different ways in which <part> could be used. One <part> will be required, but it may be repeated as many times as necessary. An authorities librarian may regard a name authority as a single part, but subjects are regularly broken down into facets, which <part> will model much more accurately that the common double-dash delimiter used in many EAD implementations.
>
> Re: using attributes to assign specific, agreed-upon meanings to specific <part> elements, I agree, this is a real need. You correctly identify @localtype as one such mechanism. Another will be @encodinganalog. @encodinganalog should be used to indicate a "same as" relationship between a given part and specific field in another schema, say a MARC subfield. @locatype should be used to subclass a given element, say a "surname" part. The difference is subtle, but important.
>
> I also agree that creating a shared vocabulary for referencing the parts of a name will be an important part of making archival description function as Linked Data. We would want the same standard to be used across EAC-CPF and EAD, as well as EAC-Functions, when that comes along, etc. As such, it really needs to exist external to those standards, and to be referenced as Ethan suggests from each. If ArchivesHub were to take the lead on creating just such a vocabulary (nudge nudge), it would be a wonderful contribution.
>
> Mike
>
>
|