I agree with Jan on this and with Patrick on everything else, I think: We've always expected to have complementary related vocabularies within an authority--local terms and Getty terms, for example--and be able to have broader term relationships between them. As Jan says, Berkeley has done this for HAVRC and CED for many years. We did not implement other relationships (related terms, preferred/nonpreferred variant terms) across vocabularies, although HAVRC and CED would have liked to be able to do this. I believe that it will not be possible in the new model to have preferred/nonpreferred variants across vocabularies because these will not be implemented as relations but within a record. That is probably OK, since this seems to be the price we will pay to get searching working in 2.4, and the pros and cons were apparently discussed already. I don't know what the model will be for related/see also type terms and what kind of functionality will be available for these. Other collections are expecting to have isolated separate vocabularies within, say, the Concept Authority. Like materials and ethnographic codes, or apples and oranges. We need to be able to do this too. Susan > Thanks Patrick. HAVRC (and CED) often add Person, Place, and Concept > terms that, for one reason or another, are not included in the > licensed Getty vocabularies. These locally added terms are then > linked to licensed terms so they will appear in the hierarchy where we > would have expected to find them. Each term has a term source so it's > possible to identify the licensed terms when it comes time to > install/incorporate updates. In a few cases, locally added terms have > been proposed to the Getty as candidate terms and been incorporated in > subsequent licensed updates. Others remain as local terms that only > exist in the broader hierarchy in the context of the HAVRC database. > So adding the term to the (largely) licensed vocabulary should really > only be an issue if the term source data is missing. But the new > proposed structure should accommodate that, as long as whoever is > doing the data entry understands that they need to go into that added > record and make sure the term source is correct. > > Jan > > On 4/2/12, Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> Thanks Jan - >> >> I should note that it is technically reasonable to allow broader >> relations >> across vocabularies (but still within the same authority item type). I >> was >> thinking it would not be a good idea to allow it, but I am not even sure >> it >> is enforced now. Seems a little screwy to me, but your use-case is a >> good >> counter-example. >> >> Other relationships can be much freer. E.g., "isEmployedBy" would link >> from >> a Person to an Org. >> >> Patrick >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Janice Eklund [mailto:janice.l.eklund@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:18 PM >>> To: Carly Bogen >>> Cc: Patrick Schmitz; Angela Spinazze; talk@lists.collectionspace.org >>> Subject: Re: Predictive text for multiple vocabs >>> >>> Thanks all. This is very helpful. I have no problem with >>> being required to edit an existing instance to add a new >>> non-preferred term. >>> >>> So if I have a vocabulary called TGN that feeds the Place >>> Authority, and it is pre-loaded with licensed data from the >>> Getty Vocabulary Program, in order to add a new term that is >>> NOT in the licensed TGN data and be able to link it as a >>> narrower context to an existing TGN licensed term I would >>> have to add it to the TGN vocabulary. This approach might >>> prove complicated for anyone licensing a vocabulary that >>> changes over time and would be subject to periodic >>> maintenance, upgrades, etc. from the provider unless there is >>> a way to easily separate locally added new terms from the >>> licensed terms (Admin status >>> perhaps?) Would this also be the case for Associative >>> relationships (thinking down the development line) like >>> "father of", "spouse of", "pupil of", etc. for Person names? >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >>> > Jan, >>> > >>> > Yes, that's correct. The same person, even if identified >>> by different >>> > preferred name forms in different vocabularies, may exist >>> in more than >>> > one vocabulary. However, PT and NPT are designated per >>> authority, not >>> > per vocabulary. That allows one name form to be designated as >>> > preferred and the rest as non-preferred, regardless of what >>> vocabulary >>> > they are in in the authority. >>> > >>> > -Carly >>> > >>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Janice Eklund >>> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: >>> > >>> >> Carly, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks Carly. I understand that this is a work in >>> progress, which is >>> >> why I am asking a lot questions to make sure I understand >>> how it is >>> >> designed to work. >>> >> >>> >> So if Museum X maintains separate vocabularies for person names >>> >> depending on their data source (e.g. ULAN, LCNAF, and a >>> local list), >>> >> does that mean the same person (perhaps identified by different >>> >> preferred name forms in different vocabularies) may exist in more >>> >> than one vocabulary? If that is the case, in version 2.4 >>> will it be >>> >> the case that all those name forms might be included in one person >>> >> authority record with one name form designated as >>> preferred and the >>> >> rest non-preferred? >>> >> >>> >> Jan >>> >> >>> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >>> >> > Jan, >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm pushing this discussion out to the Talk list because I think >>> >> > others might have the same question. >>> >> > >>> >> > In the CollectionSpace environment, an authority is made up of >>> >> > multiple vocabularies. For example, the Person authority may be >>> >> > made up of a >>> >> local >>> >> > authority and the ULAN. However, users can also add >>> terms directly >>> >> > to >>> >> the >>> >> > authority itself. >>> >> > >>> >> > In your example, Museum X would have the choice of loading >>> >> > individual >>> >> terms >>> >> > from TGN into a local vocabulary, into the entire Place Authority >>> >> (without >>> >> > adding them to a specific vocabulary), or to load only >>> the needed >>> >> > TGN >>> >> terms >>> >> > into a TGN vocabulary under the Place Authority. >>> >> > >>> >> > Hope this helps! Please note that this is a work in >>> progress. The >>> >> > intention is to solidify these plans next week with >>> Design & Scope. >>> >> > >>> >> > __ >>> >> > >>> >> > *Carly Bogen* >>> >> > >>> >> > Acting Registrar >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >>> >> > >>> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >>> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >>> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >>> >> > >>> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Janice Eklund >>> >> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Carly, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I guess what's confusing me is how the terms "vocabulary" and >>> >> >> "authority" are used in the CSpace environment. I'm used to >>> >> >> thinking of a "vocabulary" as providing the data values that >>> >> >> populate fields of an "authority record." This makes the >>> >> >> vocabulary the data source for the data values in an authority >>> >> >> record but not necessarily a separate list within the system to >>> >> >> which terms may be added. For example, Museum X may >>> want to use >>> >> >> terms from the TGN to populate a place authority record without >>> >> >> wanting to load the entire TGN list of terms within an internal >>> >> >> vocabulary list. Would this be possible under the current spec? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Jan >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >>> >> >> > Hi Jan, >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In 2.4 we are building support for non-default vocabularies >>> >> >> > within an authority. This functionality should allow >>> users to: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -Combine multiple vocabularies to form one authority >>> -Interact >>> >> >> > with each authority - e.g. search across all vocabs >>> that make up >>> >> >> > the name authority, which we currently support in our >>> authority >>> >> >> > fields -Interact with each vocabulary - via search, >>> create new, >>> >> >> > add new term, etc. - currently limited to the default >>> vocabulary >>> >> >> > in each authority >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Here's an example: >>> >> >> > Institution X has a Name Authority comprised of two >>> >> >> > vocabularies: the ULAN (Getty Union List of Artist >>> Names) and a >>> >> >> > local name list (local artists, donors, employees). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The institution must be able to: >>> >> >> > -Point term completion fields to the entire Name >>> Authority, the >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list -Add new terms (via term >>> completion UI) >>> >> >> > to either the ULAN or the >>> >> local >>> >> >> list >>> >> >> > -Add new terms (via create new) to either the ULAN or >>> the local >>> >> >> > list -Search (via find/edit) the entire Name Authority, the >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > These vocabularies would be managed in a new Vocabularies >>> >> >> > administration screen, seen here: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ >>> >> Administration+-+Vocabulary+Management >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > We are also planning to add support for Preferred and >>> >> >> > Non-Preferred terms, as you mentioned. Terms will be >>> PT or NPT >>> >> >> > for an entire authority, regardless of what >>> vocabulary they are >>> >> >> > part of that makes up that authority. Indicating >>> whether a term >>> >> >> > is preferred or non-preferred happens in the record >>> itself, not >>> >> >> > in term completion, though the new hover pop-up for term >>> >> >> > completion will indicate whether an existing term is >>> a PT or NPT. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Indicating that a term is PT or NPT happens in a term >>> record as >>> >> >> > seen >>> >> >> > here: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ >>> >> Name+Authority >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This is the idea, but of course the particularities >>> are still to >>> >> >> > be confirmed during Design & Scope next week. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Let me know if that answers your question. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thanks, >>> >> >> > Carly >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Janice Eklund < >>> >> janice.l.eklund@gmail.com >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Hi Carly, >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I'm a bit confused by the wireframe posted last week for >>> >> >> >> Predictive text (with equivalence and multiple vocabularies >>> >> >> >> within the same authority). My understanding is that the >>> >> >> >> proposed changes to the authorities structure will >>> allow both >>> >> >> >> preferred and non-preferred terms to be recorded in a single >>> >> >> >> authority (e.g. Person). The wireframe seems to indicate >>> >> >> >> multiple authorities, depending on data source (ULAN >>> and CONA) to which a new term might be added. >>> >> >> >> I was expecting something more along the lines of >>> the attached pdf. >>> >> >> >> What am I not understanding? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Jan >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > __ >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Carly Bogen >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Acting Registrar >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >>> >> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > __ >>> > >>> > *Carly Bogen* >>> > >>> > Acting Registrar >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >>> > >>> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >>> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >>> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >>> > >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >

Hi all, Patrick's question from yesterday about the level of granularity when choosing to allow the use of non-preferred terms is a big remaining question for me as I update the workflows and wire frames based on this updated plan. Any feedback from implementers on this would be very helpful. 1. Set it for each procedure (per tenant). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, you would either use all preferred terms, or you could use any mix of preferred and non-preferred terms. Each procedure would have its own defined behavior. 2. Set it for each type of Authority. Thus, e.g., whenever a Person authority is used in any record, it will either allow non-preferred terms, or it will not. Each type of authority (Person, Organization, StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.) would have its own specified behavior. 3. Set it for each vocabulary within an Authority. Thus, e.g., whenever the ULAN Person authority is used in any record, it will either allow non-preferred terms, or it will not. Other vocabularies, e.g., the "LocalPerson" vocabulary (and of course other types of authority (Organization, StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.)) would have their own specified behavior. 4. Set it for each field within a record that uses an authority (assuming some default). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, the "Current Owner" would have specified behavior (Mode 1 or Mode 2 above) that could be different from the behavior of the "Depositor" field. Thanks, Carly On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:48 PM, <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > I agree with Jan on this and with Patrick on everything else, I think: > We've always expected to have complementary related vocabularies within an > authority--local terms and Getty terms, for example--and be able to have > broader term relationships between them. As Jan says, Berkeley has done > this for HAVRC and CED for many years. We did not implement other > relationships (related terms, preferred/nonpreferred variant terms) across > vocabularies, although HAVRC and CED would have liked to be able to do > this. I believe that it will not be possible in the new model to have > preferred/nonpreferred variants across vocabularies because these will not > be implemented as relations but within a record. That is probably OK, > since this seems to be the price we will pay to get searching working in > 2.4, and the pros and cons were apparently discussed already. I don't know > what the model will be for related/see also type terms and what kind of > functionality will be available for these. > > Other collections are expecting to have isolated separate vocabularies > within, say, the Concept Authority. Like materials and ethnographic codes, > or apples and oranges. We need to be able to do this too. > > Susan > > > > Thanks Patrick. HAVRC (and CED) often add Person, Place, and Concept > > terms that, for one reason or another, are not included in the > > licensed Getty vocabularies. These locally added terms are then > > linked to licensed terms so they will appear in the hierarchy where we > > would have expected to find them. Each term has a term source so it's > > possible to identify the licensed terms when it comes time to > > install/incorporate updates. In a few cases, locally added terms have > > been proposed to the Getty as candidate terms and been incorporated in > > subsequent licensed updates. Others remain as local terms that only > > exist in the broader hierarchy in the context of the HAVRC database. > > So adding the term to the (largely) licensed vocabulary should really > > only be an issue if the term source data is missing. But the new > > proposed structure should accommodate that, as long as whoever is > > doing the data entry understands that they need to go into that added > > record and make sure the term source is correct. > > > > Jan > > > > On 4/2/12, Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Thanks Jan - > >> > >> I should note that it is technically reasonable to allow broader > >> relations > >> across vocabularies (but still within the same authority item type). I > >> was > >> thinking it would not be a good idea to allow it, but I am not even sure > >> it > >> is enforced now. Seems a little screwy to me, but your use-case is a > >> good > >> counter-example. > >> > >> Other relationships can be much freer. E.g., "isEmployedBy" would link > >> from > >> a Person to an Org. > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Janice Eklund [mailto:janice.l.eklund@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:18 PM > >>> To: Carly Bogen > >>> Cc: Patrick Schmitz; Angela Spinazze; talk@lists.collectionspace.org > >>> Subject: Re: Predictive text for multiple vocabs > >>> > >>> Thanks all. This is very helpful. I have no problem with > >>> being required to edit an existing instance to add a new > >>> non-preferred term. > >>> > >>> So if I have a vocabulary called TGN that feeds the Place > >>> Authority, and it is pre-loaded with licensed data from the > >>> Getty Vocabulary Program, in order to add a new term that is > >>> NOT in the licensed TGN data and be able to link it as a > >>> narrower context to an existing TGN licensed term I would > >>> have to add it to the TGN vocabulary. This approach might > >>> prove complicated for anyone licensing a vocabulary that > >>> changes over time and would be subject to periodic > >>> maintenance, upgrades, etc. from the provider unless there is > >>> a way to easily separate locally added new terms from the > >>> licensed terms (Admin status > >>> perhaps?) Would this also be the case for Associative > >>> relationships (thinking down the development line) like > >>> "father of", "spouse of", "pupil of", etc. for Person names? > >>> > >>> Jan > >>> > >>> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> > Jan, > >>> > > >>> > Yes, that's correct. The same person, even if identified > >>> by different > >>> > preferred name forms in different vocabularies, may exist > >>> in more than > >>> > one vocabulary. However, PT and NPT are designated per > >>> authority, not > >>> > per vocabulary. That allows one name form to be designated as > >>> > preferred and the rest as non-preferred, regardless of what > >>> vocabulary > >>> > they are in in the authority. > >>> > > >>> > -Carly > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Janice Eklund > >>> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Carly, > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks Carly. I understand that this is a work in > >>> progress, which is > >>> >> why I am asking a lot questions to make sure I understand > >>> how it is > >>> >> designed to work. > >>> >> > >>> >> So if Museum X maintains separate vocabularies for person names > >>> >> depending on their data source (e.g. ULAN, LCNAF, and a > >>> local list), > >>> >> does that mean the same person (perhaps identified by different > >>> >> preferred name forms in different vocabularies) may exist in more > >>> >> than one vocabulary? If that is the case, in version 2.4 > >>> will it be > >>> >> the case that all those name forms might be included in one person > >>> >> authority record with one name form designated as > >>> preferred and the > >>> >> rest non-preferred? > >>> >> > >>> >> Jan > >>> >> > >>> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> >> > Jan, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I'm pushing this discussion out to the Talk list because I think > >>> >> > others might have the same question. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In the CollectionSpace environment, an authority is made up of > >>> >> > multiple vocabularies. For example, the Person authority may be > >>> >> > made up of a > >>> >> local > >>> >> > authority and the ULAN. However, users can also add > >>> terms directly > >>> >> > to > >>> >> the > >>> >> > authority itself. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In your example, Museum X would have the choice of loading > >>> >> > individual > >>> >> terms > >>> >> > from TGN into a local vocabulary, into the entire Place Authority > >>> >> (without > >>> >> > adding them to a specific vocabulary), or to load only > >>> the needed > >>> >> > TGN > >>> >> terms > >>> >> > into a TGN vocabulary under the Place Authority. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Hope this helps! Please note that this is a work in > >>> progress. The > >>> >> > intention is to solidify these plans next week with > >>> Design & Scope. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > __ > >>> >> > > >>> >> > *Carly Bogen* > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Acting Registrar > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Janice Eklund > >>> >> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Carly, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I guess what's confusing me is how the terms "vocabulary" and > >>> >> >> "authority" are used in the CSpace environment. I'm used to > >>> >> >> thinking of a "vocabulary" as providing the data values that > >>> >> >> populate fields of an "authority record." This makes the > >>> >> >> vocabulary the data source for the data values in an authority > >>> >> >> record but not necessarily a separate list within the system to > >>> >> >> which terms may be added. For example, Museum X may > >>> want to use > >>> >> >> terms from the TGN to populate a place authority record without > >>> >> >> wanting to load the entire TGN list of terms within an internal > >>> >> >> vocabulary list. Would this be possible under the current spec? > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Jan > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> >> >> > Hi Jan, > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > In 2.4 we are building support for non-default vocabularies > >>> >> >> > within an authority. This functionality should allow > >>> users to: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -Combine multiple vocabularies to form one authority > >>> -Interact > >>> >> >> > with each authority - e.g. search across all vocabs > >>> that make up > >>> >> >> > the name authority, which we currently support in our > >>> authority > >>> >> >> > fields -Interact with each vocabulary - via search, > >>> create new, > >>> >> >> > add new term, etc. - currently limited to the default > >>> vocabulary > >>> >> >> > in each authority > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Here's an example: > >>> >> >> > Institution X has a Name Authority comprised of two > >>> >> >> > vocabularies: the ULAN (Getty Union List of Artist > >>> Names) and a > >>> >> >> > local name list (local artists, donors, employees). > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > The institution must be able to: > >>> >> >> > -Point term completion fields to the entire Name > >>> Authority, the > >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list -Add new terms (via term > >>> completion UI) > >>> >> >> > to either the ULAN or the > >>> >> local > >>> >> >> list > >>> >> >> > -Add new terms (via create new) to either the ULAN or > >>> the local > >>> >> >> > list -Search (via find/edit) the entire Name Authority, the > >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > These vocabularies would be managed in a new Vocabularies > >>> >> >> > administration screen, seen here: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ > >>> >> Administration+-+Vocabulary+Management > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > We are also planning to add support for Preferred and > >>> >> >> > Non-Preferred terms, as you mentioned. Terms will be > >>> PT or NPT > >>> >> >> > for an entire authority, regardless of what > >>> vocabulary they are > >>> >> >> > part of that makes up that authority. Indicating > >>> whether a term > >>> >> >> > is preferred or non-preferred happens in the record > >>> itself, not > >>> >> >> > in term completion, though the new hover pop-up for term > >>> >> >> > completion will indicate whether an existing term is > >>> a PT or NPT. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Indicating that a term is PT or NPT happens in a term > >>> record as > >>> >> >> > seen > >>> >> >> > here: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ > >>> >> Name+Authority > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > This is the idea, but of course the particularities > >>> are still to > >>> >> >> > be confirmed during Design & Scope next week. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Let me know if that answers your question. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Thanks, > >>> >> >> > Carly > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Janice Eklund < > >>> >> janice.l.eklund@gmail.com > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > wrote: > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Hi Carly, > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> I'm a bit confused by the wireframe posted last week for > >>> >> >> >> Predictive text (with equivalence and multiple vocabularies > >>> >> >> >> within the same authority). My understanding is that the > >>> >> >> >> proposed changes to the authorities structure will > >>> allow both > >>> >> >> >> preferred and non-preferred terms to be recorded in a single > >>> >> >> >> authority (e.g. Person). The wireframe seems to indicate > >>> >> >> >> multiple authorities, depending on data source (ULAN > >>> and CONA) to which a new term might be added. > >>> >> >> >> I was expecting something more along the lines of > >>> the attached pdf. > >>> >> >> >> What am I not understanding? > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Jan > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > __ > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Carly Bogen > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Acting Registrar > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> >> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -- > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > > >>> > __ > >>> > > >>> > *Carly Bogen* > >>> > > >>> > Acting Registrar > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> > > >>> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk mailing list > > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > -- __ *Carly Bogen* Acting Registrar MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 movingimage.us 718 777 6800 Direct: 718 777 6841

For MMI, we'd want to be able to set it on a per-vocab basis, on initial system config or as we add new vocabs. On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > Hi all, > > Patrick's question from yesterday about the level of granularity when choosing to allow the use of non-preferred terms is a big remaining question for me as I update the workflows and wire frames based on this updated plan. Any feedback from implementers on this would be very helpful. > > Set it for each procedure (per tenant). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, you would either use all preferred terms, or you could use any mix of preferred and non-preferred terms. Each procedure would have its own defined behavior. > Set it for each type of Authority. Thus, e.g., whenever a Person authority is used in any record, it will either allow non-preferred terms, or it will not. Each type of authority (Person, Organization, StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.) would have its own specified behavior. > Set it for each vocabulary within an Authority. Thus, e.g., whenever the ULAN Person authority is used in any record, it will either allow non-preferred terms, or it will not. Other vocabularies, e.g., the "LocalPerson" vocabulary (and of course other types of authority (Organization, StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.)) would have their own specified behavior. > Set it for each field within a record that uses an authority (assuming some default). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, the "Current Owner" would have specified behavior (Mode 1 or Mode 2 above) that could be different from the behavior of the "Depositor" field. > Thanks, > > Carly > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:48 PM, <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > I agree with Jan on this and with Patrick on everything else, I think: > We've always expected to have complementary related vocabularies within an > authority--local terms and Getty terms, for example--and be able to have > broader term relationships between them. As Jan says, Berkeley has done > this for HAVRC and CED for many years. We did not implement other > relationships (related terms, preferred/nonpreferred variant terms) across > vocabularies, although HAVRC and CED would have liked to be able to do > this. I believe that it will not be possible in the new model to have > preferred/nonpreferred variants across vocabularies because these will not > be implemented as relations but within a record. That is probably OK, > since this seems to be the price we will pay to get searching working in > 2.4, and the pros and cons were apparently discussed already. I don't know > what the model will be for related/see also type terms and what kind of > functionality will be available for these. > > Other collections are expecting to have isolated separate vocabularies > within, say, the Concept Authority. Like materials and ethnographic codes, > or apples and oranges. We need to be able to do this too. > > Susan > > > > Thanks Patrick. HAVRC (and CED) often add Person, Place, and Concept > > terms that, for one reason or another, are not included in the > > licensed Getty vocabularies. These locally added terms are then > > linked to licensed terms so they will appear in the hierarchy where we > > would have expected to find them. Each term has a term source so it's > > possible to identify the licensed terms when it comes time to > > install/incorporate updates. In a few cases, locally added terms have > > been proposed to the Getty as candidate terms and been incorporated in > > subsequent licensed updates. Others remain as local terms that only > > exist in the broader hierarchy in the context of the HAVRC database. > > So adding the term to the (largely) licensed vocabulary should really > > only be an issue if the term source data is missing. But the new > > proposed structure should accommodate that, as long as whoever is > > doing the data entry understands that they need to go into that added > > record and make sure the term source is correct. > > > > Jan > > > > On 4/2/12, Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Thanks Jan - > >> > >> I should note that it is technically reasonable to allow broader > >> relations > >> across vocabularies (but still within the same authority item type). I > >> was > >> thinking it would not be a good idea to allow it, but I am not even sure > >> it > >> is enforced now. Seems a little screwy to me, but your use-case is a > >> good > >> counter-example. > >> > >> Other relationships can be much freer. E.g., "isEmployedBy" would link > >> from > >> a Person to an Org. > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Janice Eklund [mailto:janice.l.eklund@gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:18 PM > >>> To: Carly Bogen > >>> Cc: Patrick Schmitz; Angela Spinazze; talk@lists.collectionspace.org > >>> Subject: Re: Predictive text for multiple vocabs > >>> > >>> Thanks all. This is very helpful. I have no problem with > >>> being required to edit an existing instance to add a new > >>> non-preferred term. > >>> > >>> So if I have a vocabulary called TGN that feeds the Place > >>> Authority, and it is pre-loaded with licensed data from the > >>> Getty Vocabulary Program, in order to add a new term that is > >>> NOT in the licensed TGN data and be able to link it as a > >>> narrower context to an existing TGN licensed term I would > >>> have to add it to the TGN vocabulary. This approach might > >>> prove complicated for anyone licensing a vocabulary that > >>> changes over time and would be subject to periodic > >>> maintenance, upgrades, etc. from the provider unless there is > >>> a way to easily separate locally added new terms from the > >>> licensed terms (Admin status > >>> perhaps?) Would this also be the case for Associative > >>> relationships (thinking down the development line) like > >>> "father of", "spouse of", "pupil of", etc. for Person names? > >>> > >>> Jan > >>> > >>> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> > Jan, > >>> > > >>> > Yes, that's correct. The same person, even if identified > >>> by different > >>> > preferred name forms in different vocabularies, may exist > >>> in more than > >>> > one vocabulary. However, PT and NPT are designated per > >>> authority, not > >>> > per vocabulary. That allows one name form to be designated as > >>> > preferred and the rest as non-preferred, regardless of what > >>> vocabulary > >>> > they are in in the authority. > >>> > > >>> > -Carly > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Janice Eklund > >>> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Carly, > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks Carly. I understand that this is a work in > >>> progress, which is > >>> >> why I am asking a lot questions to make sure I understand > >>> how it is > >>> >> designed to work. > >>> >> > >>> >> So if Museum X maintains separate vocabularies for person names > >>> >> depending on their data source (e.g. ULAN, LCNAF, and a > >>> local list), > >>> >> does that mean the same person (perhaps identified by different > >>> >> preferred name forms in different vocabularies) may exist in more > >>> >> than one vocabulary? If that is the case, in version 2.4 > >>> will it be > >>> >> the case that all those name forms might be included in one person > >>> >> authority record with one name form designated as > >>> preferred and the > >>> >> rest non-preferred? > >>> >> > >>> >> Jan > >>> >> > >>> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> >> > Jan, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I'm pushing this discussion out to the Talk list because I think > >>> >> > others might have the same question. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In the CollectionSpace environment, an authority is made up of > >>> >> > multiple vocabularies. For example, the Person authority may be > >>> >> > made up of a > >>> >> local > >>> >> > authority and the ULAN. However, users can also add > >>> terms directly > >>> >> > to > >>> >> the > >>> >> > authority itself. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In your example, Museum X would have the choice of loading > >>> >> > individual > >>> >> terms > >>> >> > from TGN into a local vocabulary, into the entire Place Authority > >>> >> (without > >>> >> > adding them to a specific vocabulary), or to load only > >>> the needed > >>> >> > TGN > >>> >> terms > >>> >> > into a TGN vocabulary under the Place Authority. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Hope this helps! Please note that this is a work in > >>> progress. The > >>> >> > intention is to solidify these plans next week with > >>> Design & Scope. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > __ > >>> >> > > >>> >> > *Carly Bogen* > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Acting Registrar > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> >> > > >>> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Janice Eklund > >>> >> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Carly, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I guess what's confusing me is how the terms "vocabulary" and > >>> >> >> "authority" are used in the CSpace environment. I'm used to > >>> >> >> thinking of a "vocabulary" as providing the data values that > >>> >> >> populate fields of an "authority record." This makes the > >>> >> >> vocabulary the data source for the data values in an authority > >>> >> >> record but not necessarily a separate list within the system to > >>> >> >> which terms may be added. For example, Museum X may > >>> want to use > >>> >> >> terms from the TGN to populate a place authority record without > >>> >> >> wanting to load the entire TGN list of terms within an internal > >>> >> >> vocabulary list. Would this be possible under the current spec? > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Jan > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: > >>> >> >> > Hi Jan, > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > In 2.4 we are building support for non-default vocabularies > >>> >> >> > within an authority. This functionality should allow > >>> users to: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -Combine multiple vocabularies to form one authority > >>> -Interact > >>> >> >> > with each authority - e.g. search across all vocabs > >>> that make up > >>> >> >> > the name authority, which we currently support in our > >>> authority > >>> >> >> > fields -Interact with each vocabulary - via search, > >>> create new, > >>> >> >> > add new term, etc. - currently limited to the default > >>> vocabulary > >>> >> >> > in each authority > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Here's an example: > >>> >> >> > Institution X has a Name Authority comprised of two > >>> >> >> > vocabularies: the ULAN (Getty Union List of Artist > >>> Names) and a > >>> >> >> > local name list (local artists, donors, employees). > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > The institution must be able to: > >>> >> >> > -Point term completion fields to the entire Name > >>> Authority, the > >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list -Add new terms (via term > >>> completion UI) > >>> >> >> > to either the ULAN or the > >>> >> local > >>> >> >> list > >>> >> >> > -Add new terms (via create new) to either the ULAN or > >>> the local > >>> >> >> > list -Search (via find/edit) the entire Name Authority, the > >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > These vocabularies would be managed in a new Vocabularies > >>> >> >> > administration screen, seen here: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ > >>> >> Administration+-+Vocabulary+Management > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > We are also planning to add support for Preferred and > >>> >> >> > Non-Preferred terms, as you mentioned. Terms will be > >>> PT or NPT > >>> >> >> > for an entire authority, regardless of what > >>> vocabulary they are > >>> >> >> > part of that makes up that authority. Indicating > >>> whether a term > >>> >> >> > is preferred or non-preferred happens in the record > >>> itself, not > >>> >> >> > in term completion, though the new hover pop-up for term > >>> >> >> > completion will indicate whether an existing term is > >>> a PT or NPT. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Indicating that a term is PT or NPT happens in a term > >>> record as > >>> >> >> > seen > >>> >> >> > here: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ > >>> >> Name+Authority > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > This is the idea, but of course the particularities > >>> are still to > >>> >> >> > be confirmed during Design & Scope next week. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Let me know if that answers your question. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Thanks, > >>> >> >> > Carly > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Janice Eklund < > >>> >> janice.l.eklund@gmail.com > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > wrote: > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Hi Carly, > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> I'm a bit confused by the wireframe posted last week for > >>> >> >> >> Predictive text (with equivalence and multiple vocabularies > >>> >> >> >> within the same authority). My understanding is that the > >>> >> >> >> proposed changes to the authorities structure will > >>> allow both > >>> >> >> >> preferred and non-preferred terms to be recorded in a single > >>> >> >> >> authority (e.g. Person). The wireframe seems to indicate > >>> >> >> >> multiple authorities, depending on data source (ULAN > >>> and CONA) to which a new term might be added. > >>> >> >> >> I was expecting something more along the lines of > >>> the attached pdf. > >>> >> >> >> What am I not understanding? > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Jan > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > __ > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Carly Bogen > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Acting Registrar > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> >> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -- > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > > >>> > __ > >>> > > >>> > *Carly Bogen* > >>> > > >>> > Acting Registrar > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > >>> > > >>> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > >>> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > >>> > Direct: 718 777 6841 > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk mailing list > > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > > > > -- > __ > Carly Bogen > Acting Registrar > > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > Direct: 718 777 6841 > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org

1. Set it for each procedure (per tenant). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, you
would either use all preferred terms, or you could use any mix of

I also think that per vocab within authority sounds reasonable, but if tenants were able to share vocabularies, it should also be per tenant. Most flexible would be also per field that uses the vocabulary, but if there were multiple vocabularies for a field you wouldn't want to force the same behavior on both. Susan > Hi all, > > Patrick's question from yesterday about the level of granularity when > choosing to allow the use of non-preferred terms is a big remaining > question for me as I update the workflows and wire frames based on this > updated plan. Any feedback from implementers on this would be very > helpful. > > > 1. Set it for each procedure (per tenant). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, you > would either use all preferred terms, or you could use any mix of > preferred > and non-preferred terms. Each procedure would have its own defined > behavior. > 2. Set it for each type of Authority. Thus, e.g., whenever a Person > authority is used in any record, it will either allow non-preferred > terms, > or it will not. Each type of authority (Person, Organization, > StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.) would have its own specified behavior. > 3. Set it for each vocabulary within an Authority. Thus, e.g., > whenever the ULAN Person authority is used in any record, it will > either > allow non-preferred terms, or it will not. Other vocabularies, e.g., > the > "LocalPerson" vocabulary (and of course other types of authority > (Organization, StorageLocation, Taxonomy, etc.)) would have their own > specified behavior. > 4. Set it for each field within a record that uses an authority > (assuming some default). Thus, e.g., in Intakes, the "Current Owner" > would > have specified behavior (Mode 1 or Mode 2 above) that could be > different > from the behavior of the "Depositor" field. > > Thanks, > > Carly > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:48 PM, <sstone@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> I agree with Jan on this and with Patrick on everything else, I think: >> We've always expected to have complementary related vocabularies within >> an >> authority--local terms and Getty terms, for example--and be able to have >> broader term relationships between them. As Jan says, Berkeley has done >> this for HAVRC and CED for many years. We did not implement other >> relationships (related terms, preferred/nonpreferred variant terms) >> across >> vocabularies, although HAVRC and CED would have liked to be able to do >> this. I believe that it will not be possible in the new model to have >> preferred/nonpreferred variants across vocabularies because these will >> not >> be implemented as relations but within a record. That is probably OK, >> since this seems to be the price we will pay to get searching working in >> 2.4, and the pros and cons were apparently discussed already. I don't >> know >> what the model will be for related/see also type terms and what kind of >> functionality will be available for these. >> >> Other collections are expecting to have isolated separate vocabularies >> within, say, the Concept Authority. Like materials and ethnographic >> codes, >> or apples and oranges. We need to be able to do this too. >> >> Susan >> >> >> > Thanks Patrick. HAVRC (and CED) often add Person, Place, and Concept >> > terms that, for one reason or another, are not included in the >> > licensed Getty vocabularies. These locally added terms are then >> > linked to licensed terms so they will appear in the hierarchy where we >> > would have expected to find them. Each term has a term source so it's >> > possible to identify the licensed terms when it comes time to >> > install/incorporate updates. In a few cases, locally added terms have >> > been proposed to the Getty as candidate terms and been incorporated in >> > subsequent licensed updates. Others remain as local terms that only >> > exist in the broader hierarchy in the context of the HAVRC database. >> > So adding the term to the (largely) licensed vocabulary should really >> > only be an issue if the term source data is missing. But the new >> > proposed structure should accommodate that, as long as whoever is >> > doing the data entry understands that they need to go into that added >> > record and make sure the term source is correct. >> > >> > Jan >> > >> > On 4/2/12, Patrick Schmitz <pschmitz@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >> Thanks Jan - >> >> >> >> I should note that it is technically reasonable to allow broader >> >> relations >> >> across vocabularies (but still within the same authority item type). >> I >> >> was >> >> thinking it would not be a good idea to allow it, but I am not even >> sure >> >> it >> >> is enforced now. Seems a little screwy to me, but your use-case is a >> >> good >> >> counter-example. >> >> >> >> Other relationships can be much freer. E.g., "isEmployedBy" would >> link >> >> from >> >> a Person to an Org. >> >> >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Janice Eklund [mailto:janice.l.eklund@gmail.com] >> >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:18 PM >> >>> To: Carly Bogen >> >>> Cc: Patrick Schmitz; Angela Spinazze; talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> >>> Subject: Re: Predictive text for multiple vocabs >> >>> >> >>> Thanks all. This is very helpful. I have no problem with >> >>> being required to edit an existing instance to add a new >> >>> non-preferred term. >> >>> >> >>> So if I have a vocabulary called TGN that feeds the Place >> >>> Authority, and it is pre-loaded with licensed data from the >> >>> Getty Vocabulary Program, in order to add a new term that is >> >>> NOT in the licensed TGN data and be able to link it as a >> >>> narrower context to an existing TGN licensed term I would >> >>> have to add it to the TGN vocabulary. This approach might >> >>> prove complicated for anyone licensing a vocabulary that >> >>> changes over time and would be subject to periodic >> >>> maintenance, upgrades, etc. from the provider unless there is >> >>> a way to easily separate locally added new terms from the >> >>> licensed terms (Admin status >> >>> perhaps?) Would this also be the case for Associative >> >>> relationships (thinking down the development line) like >> >>> "father of", "spouse of", "pupil of", etc. for Person names? >> >>> >> >>> Jan >> >>> >> >>> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >> >>> > Jan, >> >>> > >> >>> > Yes, that's correct. The same person, even if identified >> >>> by different >> >>> > preferred name forms in different vocabularies, may exist >> >>> in more than >> >>> > one vocabulary. However, PT and NPT are designated per >> >>> authority, not >> >>> > per vocabulary. That allows one name form to be designated as >> >>> > preferred and the rest as non-preferred, regardless of what >> >>> vocabulary >> >>> > they are in in the authority. >> >>> > >> >>> > -Carly >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Janice Eklund >> >>> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> Carly, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks Carly. I understand that this is a work in >> >>> progress, which is >> >>> >> why I am asking a lot questions to make sure I understand >> >>> how it is >> >>> >> designed to work. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> So if Museum X maintains separate vocabularies for person names >> >>> >> depending on their data source (e.g. ULAN, LCNAF, and a >> >>> local list), >> >>> >> does that mean the same person (perhaps identified by different >> >>> >> preferred name forms in different vocabularies) may exist in more >> >>> >> than one vocabulary? If that is the case, in version 2.4 >> >>> will it be >> >>> >> the case that all those name forms might be included in one >> person >> >>> >> authority record with one name form designated as >> >>> preferred and the >> >>> >> rest non-preferred? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Jan >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >> >>> >> > Jan, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I'm pushing this discussion out to the Talk list because I >> think >> >>> >> > others might have the same question. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > In the CollectionSpace environment, an authority is made up of >> >>> >> > multiple vocabularies. For example, the Person authority may >> be >> >>> >> > made up of a >> >>> >> local >> >>> >> > authority and the ULAN. However, users can also add >> >>> terms directly >> >>> >> > to >> >>> >> the >> >>> >> > authority itself. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > In your example, Museum X would have the choice of loading >> >>> >> > individual >> >>> >> terms >> >>> >> > from TGN into a local vocabulary, into the entire Place >> Authority >> >>> >> (without >> >>> >> > adding them to a specific vocabulary), or to load only >> >>> the needed >> >>> >> > TGN >> >>> >> terms >> >>> >> > into a TGN vocabulary under the Place Authority. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Hope this helps! Please note that this is a work in >> >>> progress. The >> >>> >> > intention is to solidify these plans next week with >> >>> Design & Scope. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > __ >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > *Carly Bogen* >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Acting Registrar >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >> >>> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >> >>> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Janice Eklund >> >>> >> > <janice.l.eklund@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> Carly, >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I guess what's confusing me is how the terms "vocabulary" and >> >>> >> >> "authority" are used in the CSpace environment. I'm used to >> >>> >> >> thinking of a "vocabulary" as providing the data values that >> >>> >> >> populate fields of an "authority record." This makes the >> >>> >> >> vocabulary the data source for the data values in an authority >> >>> >> >> record but not necessarily a separate list within the system >> to >> >>> >> >> which terms may be added. For example, Museum X may >> >>> want to use >> >>> >> >> terms from the TGN to populate a place authority record >> without >> >>> >> >> wanting to load the entire TGN list of terms within an >> internal >> >>> >> >> vocabulary list. Would this be possible under the current >> spec? >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Jan >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On 4/2/12, Carly Bogen <cbogen@movingimage.us> wrote: >> >>> >> >> > Hi Jan, >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > In 2.4 we are building support for non-default vocabularies >> >>> >> >> > within an authority. This functionality should allow >> >>> users to: >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > -Combine multiple vocabularies to form one authority >> >>> -Interact >> >>> >> >> > with each authority - e.g. search across all vocabs >> >>> that make up >> >>> >> >> > the name authority, which we currently support in our >> >>> authority >> >>> >> >> > fields -Interact with each vocabulary - via search, >> >>> create new, >> >>> >> >> > add new term, etc. - currently limited to the default >> >>> vocabulary >> >>> >> >> > in each authority >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Here's an example: >> >>> >> >> > Institution X has a Name Authority comprised of two >> >>> >> >> > vocabularies: the ULAN (Getty Union List of Artist >> >>> Names) and a >> >>> >> >> > local name list (local artists, donors, employees). >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > The institution must be able to: >> >>> >> >> > -Point term completion fields to the entire Name >> >>> Authority, the >> >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list -Add new terms (via term >> >>> completion UI) >> >>> >> >> > to either the ULAN or the >> >>> >> local >> >>> >> >> list >> >>> >> >> > -Add new terms (via create new) to either the ULAN or >> >>> the local >> >>> >> >> > list -Search (via find/edit) the entire Name Authority, the >> >>> >> >> > ULAN, or the local list >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > These vocabularies would be managed in a new Vocabularies >> >>> >> >> > administration screen, seen here: >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ >> >>> >> Administration+-+Vocabulary+Management >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > We are also planning to add support for Preferred and >> >>> >> >> > Non-Preferred terms, as you mentioned. Terms will be >> >>> PT or NPT >> >>> >> >> > for an entire authority, regardless of what >> >>> vocabulary they are >> >>> >> >> > part of that makes up that authority. Indicating >> >>> whether a term >> >>> >> >> > is preferred or non-preferred happens in the record >> >>> itself, not >> >>> >> >> > in term completion, though the new hover pop-up for term >> >>> >> >> > completion will indicate whether an existing term is >> >>> a PT or NPT. >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Indicating that a term is PT or NPT happens in a term >> >>> record as >> >>> >> >> > seen >> >>> >> >> > here: >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Wireframes+-+ >> >>> >> Name+Authority >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > This is the idea, but of course the particularities >> >>> are still to >> >>> >> >> > be confirmed during Design & Scope next week. >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Let me know if that answers your question. >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Thanks, >> >>> >> >> > Carly >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Janice Eklund < >> >>> >> janice.l.eklund@gmail.com >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Hi Carly, >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I'm a bit confused by the wireframe posted last week for >> >>> >> >> >> Predictive text (with equivalence and multiple vocabularies >> >>> >> >> >> within the same authority). My understanding is that the >> >>> >> >> >> proposed changes to the authorities structure will >> >>> allow both >> >>> >> >> >> preferred and non-preferred terms to be recorded in a >> single >> >>> >> >> >> authority (e.g. Person). The wireframe seems to indicate >> >>> >> >> >> multiple authorities, depending on data source (ULAN >> >>> and CONA) to which a new term might be added. >> >>> >> >> >> I was expecting something more along the lines of >> >>> the attached pdf. >> >>> >> >> >> What am I not understanding? >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Jan >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > -- >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > __ >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Carly Bogen >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > Acting Registrar >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >> >>> >> >> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > -- >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > >> >>> > __ >> >>> > >> >>> > *Carly Bogen* >> >>> > >> >>> > Acting Registrar >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE >> >>> > >> >>> > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 >> >>> > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 >> >>> > Direct: 718 777 6841 >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk mailing list >> > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> > >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk mailing list >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >> > > > > -- > > __ > > *Carly Bogen* > > Acting Registrar > > > > MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE > > 36-01 35 Avenue, Astoria, NY 11106 > movingimage.us 718 777 6800 > Direct: 718 777 6841 >