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
I don't recall discussing this in the past, but it seems like a good opportunity for some more vocabulary adoption.
It seems necessary to classify the alternate names of our Actors with one of the following. Thoughts? PR ok to get this started? Also, regarding "spouse name" that's related to #662. If couples are modeled as Group instead of Person, they can still have alternative names. However, "spouse name" seems like a classification better suited for Person than Group since a married couple itself isn't married to a spouse so I'd say let's resolve #662 first then discuss spouse name?
potentially extend to validation, but first document and definitely post 1.0
George suggested using spouse name to classify the name if it exists.
discussion around the definition of original name which tends to be more about titles than personal names? Possibly former name?
Maiden name is probably an outdated label -> Patricia (tagged with new-aat label, but might be best to have a new tag for aat-modification?)
former name recommended? covers a bunch of the other ones? And list the other ones that might be employed but we're not necessarily advocating for the use of these (e.g. original name, maiden name, spouse name) for one reason or another.
Rob suggested including vocabulary terms like spouse name both in the list of vocabularies but also in the description for the preferred vocabulary term to use instead, e.g. former name rather than spouse name.
Moved former name to recommended. Untagging 1.0 as I think that's the only 1.0 change needed beyond the general evaluation of terms in the vocabs, per discussion.
I don't recall discussing this in the past, but it seems like a good opportunity for some more vocabulary adoption.
It seems necessary to classify the alternate names of our Actors with one of the following. Thoughts? PR ok to get this started? Also, regarding "spouse name" that's related to #662. If couples are modeled as Group instead of Person, they can still have alternative names. However, "spouse name" seems like a classification better suited for Person than Group since a married couple itself isn't married to a spouse so I'd say let's resolve #662 first then discuss spouse name?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: