tch > tangible | features (Beta)

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes Authenticity. A component for setting the authenticity of the object is also necessary. There's a list for that in numisdata. Should we create a default list or thesaurus for that kind of information?

Added Authenticity field tch164, that call to new list of values Authenticity rsc1357 this change is done in:

Dédalo 2024-05-11T18:55:33+02:00 Benimamet

Please update your installation to get it.

And maybe is necessary to merge the new common list with the specific Authenticity for numismatics numisdata481

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

New proposal. The field place (tch555) is now used with the meaning of 'Recovery place', so it seems this is a better choice for the name. Besides this, it seems necessary to add a new field for 'Production place'. If the case, they should both link with toponymy and inmovable heritage (tchi1).

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes 'Recovery place', so it seems this is a better choice for the name. Besides this, it seems necessary to add a new field for 'Production place'.

Hi
It's done changed the Recovery place tch555 and added Production place tch199 into the ontology:

Dédalo 2024-05-15T11:51:15+02:00 Benimamet

Update your ontology to get it.

Best

Alex

Hi @Manuel Gozalbes @Mariajobrador

I would like to propose a meeting to discuss the solution of typologies in tangible material (for serialised objects with printed reference catalogues).

We can talk about the proposed solution, and give some examples to see if the model can work.

I will have a preview of how it can work and hopefully we will reach a consensus. This is an important topic.
Does anyone else want to join the discussion?

This Friday 17/05 morning could be ok? at 12:00? 13:00?

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

It's ok for me

Mariajobrador

It's ok for me

Mariajobrador

Proposal: Publish the conclusions of the meeting in the Agora

Alex

Mariajobrador Proposal: Publish the conclusions of the meeting in the Agora

Perfect!

So, see you Friday at 12:00 in dédalo jitsi

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

Manuel Gozalbes Another possible improvement is for the field period / chronology. Perhaps is possible to add the thesaurus culture in this field. Sometimes 'periods' are used in the sense of 'cultures' and viceversa (Bronze Age, Baroque...). Sometimes can be also Dynastic information (Ming dynasty), but I think that this kind of info is possible to set a internal branch of the chronological thesaurus. For the label of this field sounds good 'Period / Culture' (+ Dynasty?)

I'm back to the field 'period'. I suggest to use the label and some 'official' thesauri to give an idea of the contents. Maybe is a sort of mix of thematic concepts, but makes sense and a suggestion for the label is; Period / Culture / Dinasty / Style. The field should link to 4 official thesauri with the same names (the only new are Dinasty and Style). Style seems important specially for the same field in the inmovable heritage section (tchi1).

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes Maybe is a sort of mix of thematic concepts, but makes sense and a suggestion for the label is; Period / Culture / Dinasty / Style

Ok, done in the ontology:

Dédalo 2024-05-19T11:45:17+02:00 Benimamet

Update your installation to get it.

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

Is it possible to add an official thesaurus for historical toponymy? For instance, it seems to be necessary for the field production place of tch1. For instance, Ancient mints or Roman provinces are production places that are necessary to reference when cataloguing archaeological objects.

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes Is it possible to add an official thesaurus for historical toponymy?

It's possible, but, which tld will be clear to be implemeted?

we have: utoponymy for unofficial toponymy
maybe: htoponymy ??? or more longer? historicaltoponymy

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

Alex e have: utoponymy for unofficial toponymy

I don't mind, but I think that If we already have 'utoponymy', the short form 'htoponymy' applies the same model

Mariajobrador

My opinion: historicaltoponymy.
I leave you a link. I guess you know him
https://tesauros.cultura.gob.es/tesauros/toponimiahistorica.html
All the best

Mariajobrador

As you consider best. I am in favor of things being as clear as possible. User understanding must be taken into account...

Manuel Gozalbes

In the filter, when choosing a value in the autocomplete of the field 'recovery place' for searching, the requested record is not displayed correctly. The term doesn't appear, only the parents are shown. The search is ok, is only a problem of data visualisation.

Manuel Gozalbes

This is a screenshot of the images gallery (tch178) in the `sets' section when clicking 'show all' . It includes 150 images.

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes This is a screenshot of the images gallery (tch178) in the `sets' section when clicking 'show all' . It includes 150 images.

Fixed in the ontology:

Dédalo 2024-05-30T18:08:22+02:00 Benimamet

Update to get it.

Thanks for report it.

Best

Mariajobrador

@Alex @Manuel Gozalbes I share my notes from the last meeting. Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.

Solution of typologies in tangible material for serialised objects with printed reference catalogues:

The OBJECT NAME field is maintained, for standardisation in the identification and introduction of object data. This field is linked to the THEME thesaurus.
In the case of users who work with printed reference catalogues (author typologies), the OBJECT NAME field will be catalogued with the typology of the object from the THEMATICS thesaurus and it will be necessary for the user to generate their own typology thesaurus in the TYPOLOGIES thesaurus. This new thesaurus will work with the TCH20 record model.

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

Three comments about 'author of the file' (tch170).

I think 'author of the record' sounds better
I recommend to disable the 'linking resource' tool as authorship should be always treated as a unique resource with a single link (not shared).
I've added two persons in that portal an it works fine whitin the section (rsc1035), but when the record is displayed in the tch1 section only appears the first person. For sure this is the same problem that the authorship in the publications list. Multiple values are not compatible with edition mode in the list... there's no easy solution...

Mariajobrador

Manuel Gozalbes

(tch170) "author of the record" I also think that it better explains the use of the field

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes I think 'author of the record' sounds better

Ok for me.

I was changed in the ontology:

Dédalo 2024-06-06T18:52:35+02:00 Benimamet

Update your installation to get it.

Manuel Gozalbes I recommend to disable the 'linking resource' tool as authorship should be always treated as a unique resource with a single link (not shared).

Ok, done in the same ontology version than previous.

Manuel Gozalbes I've added two persons in that portal

Wrong way, is better use one row with 1 person at time.

Manuel Gozalbes but when the record is displayed in the tch1 section only appears the first person

Don't add more people than 1.

Manuel Gozalbes For sure this is the same problem that the authorship in the publications list

Nop, here you have a role that will be assigned to the person, in the authorship of all persons are authors, the field indicate the role, but here the role is a complement of the person, so multiple persons is not a good way, it is possible to do it, but... I don't recommend it.

Best.

« Previous Page Next Page »