Adding resourceModification as a supertype of contentModification & metadataModification #25
Conversation
…dataModification, clarifying descriptions
| <skos:definition xml:lang="en">A content file or metadata is modified.</skos:definition> | ||
| <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation/eventType"/> | ||
| <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation"/> | ||
| <skos:narrower rdf:resource="http://fedora.info/definitions/v4/audit#bitstreamModification"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be:
<skos:narrower rdf:resource="http://fedora.info/definitions/v4/audit#contentModification"/>
??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought resourceModification was the top of the mods?
|
Just to be clear, we're explaining removal as something disjoint with modification? Of course I'm fine with that, but we might want to add some |
|
@ajs6f yes, the intention is for removal to be when a node/bitstream is deleted, and modification when it is updated. Neither OWL nor SKOS has great vocabulary for expressing that they are disjoint, but I can add owl:differentFrom assertions (or just a owl:AllDifferent block saying all four individuals are different). |
|
Cool, we're on the same page. Yeah, OWL in particular wants to be real careful about disjointness because of the anti-UNA attitude that comes with a global field of work, but I think we're justified here. And |
|
Resolved with: c77d81b |
Addresses https://jira.duraspace.org/browse/FCREPO-1475