Good point.  There also appears to be an active implementation of

Hi Al, Off the cuff, it seems like you could potentially do what you're describing: implement, in the extension schemas for Taxon and Concept, a multivalued / repeatable group that contained Related Term and Related Term Type fields. The Related Term field might be 'wired' to vocabularies in both the Taxon and Concept authorities, and the Related Term Type field could contain an option list that includes "see also" and other relationships between terms. I'm not sure what the future implications of modeling related terms in this way might be, however, so I'm hoping others with thoughts about this, architecturally and/or practically, might wish to jump in here. One clarification related to the existing instance in Citation ... Susan wrote me privately that: "The example in the citation authority is a bit different; it is literally related concept terms [like subject terms for the citation] rather than related terms in the sense of see also.)" Aron On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> wrote: > Hello Aron, Susan, all, > > Thanks Aron for pointing me towards the Jira, wiki, and related discussion. > The Jira "User may create related term relationships between vocabulary > terms" > http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990 > > addresses what we'd like to be able to do. But I'm not exactly clear on how > this is not possible now, by using Related term and Related term type, which > as you point out are in the Citation authority demo, and also in schema for > person and org but not yet implemented. If we can use those terms to > reference another authority (i.e. Concept from Citation), what would be the > issue using those fields in a similar way to "see also"? And, if it is in > fact possible to refer to the same authority within that authority, could > there be a Related term field that references both the same authority it is > located in, as well as others? I'm sure I'm missing something. Thanks again > for all your time and thoughts on this! I realize I'm jumping into a > discussion that has been going on for some time. > > Al > > > > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Aron Roberts <aronroberts@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Susan Stone <sstone@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> > Yet this is configured as an authority reference to the concept >> > authority, >> > not a cspace relation between authorities of type See Also or some such >> > implemented in the style of the hierarchy section (which was discussed >> > at >> > times as future). >> >> Very true. This has few of the *handy* features of the Hierarchy >> section. >> >> There are some early wireframes that give some >> >> > Is it possible to refer to the current authority in a field in that >> > authority? >> >> Off the top of my head, I can't recall any limitations that would >> prevent you from doing that. >> >> For instance, the Citation record includes a Term Source field >> (labeled just "Source" in the UI) - you can find that field near the >> bottom of each group in the repeatable Citation Term Group field. >> This field references terms from one or more vocabularies within ... >> the Citation authority. >> >> Aron >> >> > >> > Susan >> > >> > >> > >> > On 05/06/2014 05:25 PM, Aron Roberts wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Susan Stone <sstone@berkeley.edu> >> >> wrote [directly to me, noting that she's encountering difficulties >> >> posting to the Talk list]: >> >> >> >>> Note that Related Term and Related Term Type appear in the authority >> >>> documentation schemas for at least Person and Org even though they >> >>> aren't >> >>> implemented. >> >> >> >> Good point. There also appears to be an active implementation of >> >> those two fields in the Citation Authority, an authority which was a >> >> contribution from SMK: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://demo.collectionspace.org:8180/collectionspace/ui/core/html/citation.html >> >> >> >> Aron >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Al Bersch > Digital Project Coordinator > Oakland Museum of California > 1000 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94607 > abersch@museumca.org > 510-318-8468

Good point.  There also appears to be an active implementation of

Hi Aron, Susan, all, Thanks for the continued discussion. I now understand from Susan that this field group was not intended to to relate authority terms themselves. That said, it sounds like we might want to try setting up a related term / related term type repeatable group, as Aron suggests, "the wrong way" as a trial in one of the authorities and see how it goes. I'll share this with our migration team, and will let everyone know what we end up doing and how it goes. thanks again for ideas/thoughts - Al On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Aron Roberts <aronroberts@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Al, > > Off the cuff, it seems like you could potentially do what you're > describing: implement, in the extension schemas for Taxon and Concept, > a multivalued / repeatable group that contained Related Term and > Related Term Type fields. The Related Term field might be 'wired' to > vocabularies in both the Taxon and Concept authorities, and the > Related Term Type field could contain an option list that includes > "see also" and other relationships between terms. > > I'm not sure what the future implications of modeling related terms > in this way might be, however, so I'm hoping others with thoughts > about this, architecturally and/or practically, might wish to jump in > here. > > One clarification related to the existing instance in Citation ... > Susan wrote me privately that: "The example in the citation authority > is a bit different; it is literally related concept terms [like > subject terms for the citation] rather than related terms in the sense > of see also.)" > > Aron > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> wrote: > > Hello Aron, Susan, all, > > > > Thanks Aron for pointing me towards the Jira, wiki, and related > discussion. > > The Jira "User may create related term relationships between vocabulary > > terms" > > http://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-2990 > > > > addresses what we'd like to be able to do. But I'm not exactly clear on > how > > this is not possible now, by using Related term and Related term type, > which > > as you point out are in the Citation authority demo, and also in schema > for > > person and org but not yet implemented. If we can use those terms to > > reference another authority (i.e. Concept from Citation), what would be > the > > issue using those fields in a similar way to "see also"? And, if it is in > > fact possible to refer to the same authority within that authority, could > > there be a Related term field that references both the same authority it > is > > located in, as well as others? I'm sure I'm missing something. Thanks > again > > for all your time and thoughts on this! I realize I'm jumping into a > > discussion that has been going on for some time. > > > > Al > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Aron Roberts <aronroberts@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Susan Stone <sstone@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> > Yet this is configured as an authority reference to the concept > >> > authority, > >> > not a cspace relation between authorities of type See Also or some > such > >> > implemented in the style of the hierarchy section (which was discussed > >> > at > >> > times as future). > >> > >> Very true. This has few of the *handy* features of the Hierarchy > >> section. > >> > >> There are some early wireframes that give some > >> > >> > Is it possible to refer to the current authority in a field in that > >> > authority? > >> > >> Off the top of my head, I can't recall any limitations that would > >> prevent you from doing that. > >> > >> For instance, the Citation record includes a Term Source field > >> (labeled just "Source" in the UI) - you can find that field near the > >> bottom of each group in the repeatable Citation Term Group field. > >> This field references terms from one or more vocabularies within ... > >> the Citation authority. > >> > >> Aron > >> > >> > > >> > Susan > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 05/06/2014 05:25 PM, Aron Roberts wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Susan Stone <sstone@berkeley.edu> > >> >> wrote [directly to me, noting that she's encountering difficulties > >> >> posting to the Talk list]: > >> >> > >> >>> Note that Related Term and Related Term Type appear in the authority > >> >>> documentation schemas for at least Person and Org even though they > >> >>> aren't > >> >>> implemented. > >> >> > >> >> Good point. There also appears to be an active implementation of > >> >> those two fields in the Citation Authority, an authority which was a > >> >> contribution from SMK: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://demo.collectionspace.org:8180/collectionspace/ui/core/html/citation.html > >> >> > >> >> Aron > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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