Manuel Gozalbes
Manuel Gozalbes As these are in fact typologies, a problem arises because already exists a field with the name typology for describing the cataloguing the objects (tch241). For avoiding confusions perhaps the name of the new field can be something like `record type'.
To clarify the situation:
1 We need all sections of the THC model(object, photograph, document) to be a hierarchy, so any object can have a parent or children:
Objects could be nested in this way:
├─ Wreck
├─ Amphora
├─ Necklace
├─ Coin
Photos could be nested in this way:
├─ Album
├─ Page
├─ Image 1
├─ Image 2
Documents could be nested in this way:
├─ Expedient
├─ Act of Assignment
├─ Page 1
├─ Page 2
Or any other combination.
2 When the parent is an object as Amphora in Necklace -> Amphora, the hierarchy is coherent. But when the parent is not a physical object, is a group as hoard, the hierarchy need to say that this record is other thing than object. Dédalo uses in the thesaurus context the second hierarchy (models) to say what kind of record is. So, is possible defines something like:
├─ Hoard
├─ Ethnological group
├─ Object
├─ Object part
Or any other combination.
In the same way than is possible define Country, City, Municipality, Village, etc in toponymy.
3 In thesaurus context this second hierarchy is called by Typology field. But in TCH sections Typology is used to establish what kind of object is. Like denarius or campaniforme or aixada de ganxos or ... and the Typology field name conflicts with the Typology of the record used as thesaurus. In other words, Typology of the object is not the same than record Typology. In a flat section of objects, all records are objects, but with a hierarchy, some records will not be objects and is necessary to identify them.
So the Manuel proposal is:
Typology -------> What type of object it is, how it is used until now.
Record type ----> What kind of register is (object, set, etc...)
Fine by me, does anyone have another proposal?
And another question: what kind of section should be used for the «model» hierarchy to define the records types. My proposal is to use the same of other thesaurus, hierarchy20 (the main thesaurus section). For me not make sense use the same section than TCH, too complex.
If we use the thesaurus model, we have a conflict of tld because we have the tch2 used for register section. And will be necessary to move his data into new tld. so my proposal Is use tch10 (it's free).
Important: So I want to ask if is necessary an update of the data or not, if nobody has data into this section, we can deprecate it... if not, is possible to move the tld automatically.
Best
