Empathy List Archives

AB

Al Bersch

Tue, May 6, 2014 11:35 PM

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about
related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there
is not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between
authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for
future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list
archive (maybe I missed it?).

Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred
terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also
for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term
relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration
(preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the
common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the
Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common
names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to
take. Has this come up before?

Thanks again!

Al

Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

Hello all, Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there is not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list archive (maybe I missed it?). Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to take. Has this come up before? Thanks again! Al Al Bersch Digital Project Coordinator Oakland Museum of California 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 abersch@museumca.org 510-318-8468

SS

Susan Stone

Tue, May 6, 2014 11:52 PM

Al,

Preferred-nonpreferred is handled in the term list, but I think see also
among authority terms (in the same or other authorities) is a relation
that isn't supported--is that still correct?

Susan

On 05/06/2014 04:35 PM, Al Bersch wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question
about related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I
understand there is not currently a field for related "see also" terms
within or between authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up
as a suggestion for future work. I looked, but didn't find much
discussion on the talk list archive (maybe I missed it?).

Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between
preferred terms (used widely as a relation between common names and
taxon but also for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as
non-preferred term relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and
Drug Administration (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve
these relationships. For the common names, we might be interested in
making the Common name field in the Taxon Authority reference the
Concept Authority where we'll load the Common names, but for other
"see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to take. Has this
come up before?

Thanks again!

Al

Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org mailto:abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

Al, Preferred-nonpreferred is handled in the term list, but I think see also among authority terms (in the same or other authorities) is a relation that isn't supported--is that still correct? Susan On 05/06/2014 04:35 PM, Al Bersch wrote: > Hello all, > > Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question > about related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I > understand there is not currently a field for related "see also" terms > within or between authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up > as a suggestion for future work. I looked, but didn't find much > discussion on the talk list archive (maybe I missed it?). > > Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between > preferred terms (used widely as a relation between common names and > taxon but also for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as > non-preferred term relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and > Drug Administration (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve > these relationships. For the common names, we might be interested in > making the Common name field in the Taxon Authority reference the > Concept Authority where we'll load the Common names, but for other > "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to take. Has this > come up before? > > Thanks again! > > Al > > > Al Bersch > Digital Project Coordinator > Oakland Museum of California > 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 > abersch@museumca.org <mailto:abersch@museumca.org> > 510-318-8468 > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

AB

Al Bersch

Tue, May 6, 2014 11:59 PM

Hi all,

I just heard from Susan that terms with a preferred/non-preferred
relationship can get handled in with the preferred and alternate term lists
in the term record, so it's only the "see also" terms we're concerned with.
I wasn't totally clear on that, sorry for any confusion.

Thanks,

Al

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch abersch@museumca.org wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about
related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there
is not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between
authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for
future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list
archive (maybe I missed it?).

Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred
terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also
for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term
relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration
(preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the
common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the
Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common
names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to
take. Has this come up before?

Thanks again!

Al

Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

--
Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

Hi all, I just heard from Susan that terms with a preferred/non-preferred relationship can get handled in with the preferred and alternate term lists in the term record, so it's only the "see also" terms we're concerned with. I wasn't totally clear on that, sorry for any confusion. Thanks, Al On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about > related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there > is not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between > authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for > future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list > archive (maybe I missed it?). > > Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred > terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also > for terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term > relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration > (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the > common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the > Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common > names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to > take. Has this come up before? > > Thanks again! > > Al > > > Al Bersch > Digital Project Coordinator > Oakland Museum of California > 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 > abersch@museumca.org > 510-318-8468 > -- Al Bersch Digital Project Coordinator Oakland Museum of California 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 abersch@museumca.org 510-318-8468

AR

Aron Roberts

Wed, May 7, 2014 12:06 AM

Hi Al,

I just heard from Susan that terms with a preferred/non-preferred relationship can get handled in with the preferred and alternate term lists in the term record ...

Great! (Thanks, Susan, for suggesting Al look into that!)

... so it's only the "see also" terms we're concerned with.

There's the following JIRA issue and two associated wiki pages.
Does this capture the "see also" use case you're describing?

"User may create related term relationships between vocabulary terms"
http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990

http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/User+may+create+related+term+relationships+between+vocabulary+terms

http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Vocabulary+Requirements+-+Release+1.7
(See the subhead "Relationships Between Terms")

There is also this JIRA, which appear to cover closely-related functionality:

"User may create use or use for relationships between vocabulary terms"
http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2989

Both are marked with a fix version of "FUTURE".

Aron

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch abersch@museumca.org wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about
related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there is
not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between
authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for
future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list
archive (maybe I missed it?).

Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred
terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also for
terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term
relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration
(preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the
common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the
Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common
names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to
take. Has this come up before?

Thanks again!

Al

Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

Hi Al, > I just heard from Susan that terms with a preferred/non-preferred relationship can get handled in with the preferred and alternate term lists in the term record ... Great! (Thanks, Susan, for suggesting Al look into that!) > ... so it's only the "see also" terms we're concerned with. There's the following JIRA issue and two associated wiki pages. Does this capture the "see also" use case you're describing? "User may create related term relationships between vocabulary terms" http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990 http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/User+may+create+related+term+relationships+between+vocabulary+terms http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Vocabulary+Requirements+-+Release+1.7 (See the subhead "Relationships Between Terms") There is also this JIRA, which appear to cover closely-related functionality: "User may create use or use for relationships between vocabulary terms" http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2989 Both are marked with a fix version of "FUTURE". Aron On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about > related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there is > not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between > authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for > future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list > archive (maybe I missed it?). > > Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred > terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also for > terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term > relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration > (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the > common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the > Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common > names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to > take. Has this come up before? > > Thanks again! > > Al > > > Al Bersch > Digital Project Coordinator > Oakland Museum of California > 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 > abersch@museumca.org > 510-318-8468 > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >

AR

Aron Roberts

Wed, May 7, 2014 12:17 AM

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Aron Roberts aronroberts@gmail.com wrote:

There's the following JIRA issue ...

"User may create related term relationships between vocabulary terms"
http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990
...
There is also this JIRA, which appear to cover closely-related functionality:

"User may create use or use for relationships between vocabulary terms"
http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2989

Both are marked with a fix version of "FUTURE".

My understanding is that this designation means these issues became
recognized feature requests at some point during CollectionSpace's
development, possibly emanating from requirements gathered at
pre-development workshops or from other sources along the way.
However, these haven't yet been prioritized by existing implementers
above other, competing development needs. (Others are welcome to
correct or clarify my understanding here.)

As some possible background related to implementing relationships
between authority terms, other than hierarchical relationships within
a single authority and vocabulary (which is currently implemented),
see the last two comments on the following issue:

http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-4997

Aron

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch abersch@museumca.org wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about
related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there is
not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between
authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for
future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list
archive (maybe I missed it?).

Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred
terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also for
terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term
relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration
(preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the
common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the
Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common
names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to
take. Has this come up before?

Thanks again!

Al

Al Bersch
Digital Project Coordinator
Oakland Museum of California
1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607
abersch@museumca.org
510-318-8468

Talk mailing list
Talk@lists.collectionspace.org
http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Aron Roberts <aronroberts@gmail.com> wrote: > There's the following JIRA issue ... > > "User may create related term relationships between vocabulary terms" > http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990 > ... > There is also this JIRA, which appear to cover closely-related functionality: > > "User may create use or use for relationships between vocabulary terms" > http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2989 > > Both are marked with a fix version of "FUTURE". My understanding is that this designation means these issues became recognized feature requests at some point during CollectionSpace's development, possibly emanating from requirements gathered at pre-development workshops or from other sources along the way. However, these haven't yet been prioritized by existing implementers above other, competing development needs. (Others are welcome to correct or clarify my understanding here.) As some possible background related to implementing relationships between authority terms, other than hierarchical relationships within a single authority and vocabulary (which is currently implemented), see the last two comments on the following issue: http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-4997 Aron > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Thanks again for all your input on term types. I now have a question about >> related terms. In the hierarchies for the authorities, I understand there is >> not currently a field for related "see also" terms within or between >> authorities, and I was wondering if this has come up as a suggestion for >> future work. I looked, but didn't find much discussion on the talk list >> archive (maybe I missed it?). >> >> Our issue is that we have many terms that are "see also" between preferred >> terms (used widely as a relation between common names and taxon but also for >> terms like "dwelling" and "housing"), as well as non-preferred term >> relations (such as FDA (non-preferred)and Food and Drug Administration >> (preferred)). We'd like to be able to preserve these relationships. For the >> common names, we might be interested in making the Common name field in the >> Taxon Authority reference the Concept Authority where we'll load the Common >> names, but for other "see also" references I'm not sure exactly course to >> take. Has this come up before? >> >> Thanks again! >> >> Al >> >> >> Al Bersch >> Digital Project Coordinator >> Oakland Museum of California >> 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 >> abersch@museumca.org >> 510-318-8468 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk mailing list >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >>

talk@lists.collectionspace.org

related authority terms