Dear Vladimir, Dear Colleagues,
thank You for vocabulary.
I think that in creation of vocabularies very important the some
things. We need decide what is the aim and the object that will
described by vocabulary. If this vocabulary will used for describing
of Europeana's digital objects (class - "Object type", content "text",
"image", "3D", "video", "sound"), we must decide what is the next. At
case of "video" it's subclases (types) of videos (advertizing film,
animated film, TV film and etc.) - it's aproximatelly logical. But in
case of images the next class is not types of images, but the possible
content of images. It's absolutelly diffrerent class, which describe
the objects from reality and can be used for classification of
contents for all digital objects (e.g. archaeological site or ceramics
can be in content of videos and texts too). For textual documents is
used the third classification schema, where is classificated not the
types of textual documents ans not the types of possible content, but
the types of literaturic genres (lyrics, pamphlets, theses, essay and
Another question is using of the same criteria in the same classe.
E.g. in the classification of text we find e.g. the book and the
encyclopedias (do encyclopedia is not book?), or in images, e.g.
cultural property and archaeological sites (do archaeological sites
are not cultural property), or in videos, e.g TV film and
documentary... and etc.
By my opinion at the good classifications we must respect this rules....
My proposal for possible schema is attached....
Vladimir Alexiev <[log in to unmask]> rašė:
>> In addition we would like to share with you parallel work done by Europeana
>> and a couple of partners on a vocabulary to describe collections at
>> a generic level:
>> The aim of this vocabulary is to cover all the objects currently
>> available in the Europeana portal.
>> Combined with the EDM collection profile this vocabulary could
>> provide a basis
>> for future collection descriptions in Europeana.
> Hi Valentine and Robina !
> I attach an email I posted on 5 Dec 2013 at the mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> The same is "reprinted" at the EuropeanaCreative WP2 basecamp, with
> a bit of discussion by Antoine:
> Basically, the idea is that the vocabulary for describing
> collections can be enriched easily by leveraging manually selected
> terms with:
> - more terms from related dbpedia categories
> - more synonyms from other LOD sources, e.g. GND and DDC