You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Possibly due to limitations in TMS data modeling, we have the following thesaurus reference types that might make good candidates for shareable linked art types if these are even valid classifications.
I think one way to model these as linked art terms would be with AAT:Place_Types sub-classified with active, birth, collection, death, etc. or maybe the inverse of that (active sub-classed as place types?)
which could then be used either as an equivalent for a custom term or directly as a classification term.
I realize some of these should be mapped to more appropriate linked art API endpoints rather than using a classification term, so maybe we shouldn't surface these as classifications at all even if they would exist under the appropriate API endpoint as well as classification terms?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Possibly due to limitations in TMS data modeling, we have the following thesaurus reference types that might make good candidates for shareable linked art types if these are even valid classifications.
la:placeActive_term
la:placeBirthed_term
la:placeCollected_term
la:placeDied_term
la:placeExecuted
la:placeProduced
la:placePublished
I think one way to model these as linked art terms would be with AAT:Place_Types sub-classified with active, birth, collection, death, etc. or maybe the inverse of that (active sub-classed as place types?)
e.g.
la:placeActive_term could be defined as:
which could then be used either as an equivalent for a custom term or directly as a classification term.
I realize some of these should be mapped to more appropriate linked art API endpoints rather than using a classification term, so maybe we shouldn't surface these as classifications at all even if they would exist under the appropriate API endpoint as well as classification terms?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: