We have started introducing the restoration data in the new tch1 model. It constitutes a great improvement in comparison to our previous section in the mupreva ontology. I would like to make some suggestions about the structure, labels and components of this sections.

The sections related with conservation are included under the resources menu. Maybe the group fits better under the activities menu, due that restoration processes are are always and activity related with the objects. And also, if only one word describes the group, maybe conservation is more wide and precise but restoration seems to be more clear for the users.
If this solution is adopted it's interesting also to rename the restoration section (rsc550) as intervention, the name that is used in the portal of tch1. Doing this the first group of the section should be renamed as identification avoiding the repetition of intervention
Following this model the terms of the tab conservation and restoration can be reversed into restoration and conservation. Not better, but follows the general model.
Is it also a good idea to rename the five official conservation thesauri with the prefix res?
In tch1 the first group under the conservation/restoration tab (actual estate) can be renamed as preventive conservation.
The portal conservation and recomendation parameters (tch508) can be shortened as conservation recommendations (the actual length is very long for the filter, takes up too much space). In this section seems also necessary to create a new field for setting a title.
It's ok if the field Handling, transport, exposure specifications is deprecated because, in fact, similar fields are included above under the Inspections / Conservation state section.
The final group STATUS PRIOR TO INCORPORATION INTO THE COLLECTION is very close in concept to the contents of the section Inspections / Conservation state. I suggest to remove those fields and to use for that info the portal inspections.... By doing so both groups are merged to get together an historical register of this info. The field Historical interventions (tch498) seems relevant and maybe it's a good option to move to the section Inspections / Conservation state.
A couple of changes may help to display more relevant info in the portal inspections.... Perhaps a good solution is to show this arrangement of the fields:
Date / Intervention urgency / Historical intervention / Pathology Technical (person?) / Images / Audiovisual.
The section inspection... Maybe needs to split cause and pathologies into two separate fields linking only to the specific thesauri created for these topics.
In the section intervention (rsc550) is necessary the field for the publication control. Also the Process type (rsc615) field of the portal shows a list instead of the values from the cotreatment thesaurus.