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

My email got bounced back now too - I'm trying to forward this to talk... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Al Bersch <abersch@museumca.org> Date: Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Talk] related authority terms To: Aron Roberts <aronroberts@gmail.com> Cc: Susan Stone <sstone@berkeley.edu>, "talk@lists.collectionspace.org" < talk@lists.collectionspace.org> 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