Can we collectively bring our community's terminology needs to vocabulary authorities like AAT and wikidata?

[beaudet]

This question / suggestion arose during a review of an NGA draft of linked art data. For example, there's no entry for the most common collection management systems so each institution has to mint their own identifiers to record things like "TMS" which isn't optimal. There are no doubt at least half a dozen or more examples of terms that once added would benefit the community.

[azaroth42]

Wikidata is easy, of course, we can just create new records. Whether they stay up to date, or worse, whether they get deleted or defaced ... well ... we can't know.

AAT is a different case. We could batch up some requests, or we could try to categorize the sorts of things that we'd like, and then approach the AAT editors.

[jpadfield]

We are in the final processes of setting up a vocab server for E-RIHS - the focus will be on issue related to Heritage Science including terms in relation to digital tools. It is being setup as the primary source of terms and controlled lists for E-RIHS activities, but the exact editorial scope has not been defined yet. We do intend to link to existing terms from AAT and Wikidata etc. but will create new entries for relevant terms which are not covered elsewhere. Might this be useful at all in this case?

[julsraemy]

I am also wondering if terms from other controlled vocabularies could be added to the required/recommended/listed categories, such as Homosaurus.