Non-sufficient codelist values of vocabularies resource type and resource relation type

[MichalMed]

It is rather unclear how to determine legislation document or metadata record as a resource type.

Resource type uses COAR - it is missing at least these two values. Either find another controlled vocabulary that describes it, or create a new one at techlib.

It is also unclear how to describe relation between dataset and physical sample, tool or legislation document.

Relation type codelist is copy of datacite relation type - go through definitions to find out.

Related resource vocabulary is not sufficient for description of legislative documents or metadata.
Relation type is not sufficient for description of relations to related resources such as physical sample, tool or legislation document.

Originally posted by @MichalMed in #60

[MichalMed]

@Pavlki

[MichalMed]

Datacite relation type codelist: https://datacite-metadata-schema.readthedocs.io/en/4.6/appendices/appendix-1/relationType/

COAR Resource types: https://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/resource_types/

[michal-klodner]

COAR is meant for data in scientific repositories and it refers to record own (dataset) data. It is not suitable for related resources, in general sense anything outside repository.

Legislation documents or metadata records are no datasets, when are not in form of database or corpus, i.e. curated set of records, set of legislation documents for digital humanities analysis etc.

For broader resource description vocabularies for example LCGFT can be used in subject with "LCGFT" subject scheme.
https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCGFT/freelcgft.html

Nevertheless, the best bractices guide for CCMM would certainly be useful.

[mesemus]

Is LCGFT available in a different format than huge pdf document?

[michal-klodner]

Oh sure. Here are the LoC vocabularies in different formats incl. SKOS , RDF and other:

https://id.loc.gov/

[Pavlki]

Hi Nikola @6tova, could you please provide some specific examples of the terms you find missing in the controlled vocabularies? This would help us understand whether an extension of the vocabulary is really necessary, or if the situation can be solved in another way. Thank you!

[MichalMed]

@Pavlki : Nikola @6tova did not come with the issue and extension or change of vocabulary is necessary, because it was chosen wrong in the first place.
The two examples I have found out (legislation document and metadata record) are relevant and will occur often. Please, try to solve the problems, not avoid them.
Of course, if @6tova can come with other values that are missing, it is more than welcome.

[MichalMed]

@michal-klodner I went briefly through LCGFT and I have found legislation instrument http://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms/gf2011026355 that fits the needs. I did not find anything to describe metadata record there, but I found metadata in other LoC vocabulary - subject headings - https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh96000740.html.

For this (and other) reason(s) I suggested not to enclose the list of possible values to one given codelist. I understand the technical issues that laed to the current solution, but it also means that the vocanbulary value list MUST be and WILL be extended.

[Pavlki]

Thank you, @MichalMed, for clarifying. I understand your point that the vocabulary will need to be extended. My task here was to ask Nikola @6tova for additional examples in case there are further values missing, so that we have a clearer picture before deciding how to proceed.

[6tova]

Hi, thank you for including me in the question and sorry for later reply (I am getting familiar with git-hub). I have few questions for now:

1. In "description type" vocabulary:
   a) there is term "abstract". I have this experience from catch-all - when abstract is used for description of dataset, 90% of users mistakenly fill info about related resource (article) rather than providing description about the dataset. Could this be adjusted for better fit?
   b) I am searching for a way to describe a sample/specimen, it is also resource, but can not be described by "Abstract"
   c) Would it be possible to add more specific description of a tool? (I know techcnical info is somewhat covering it, however technical info and methods seems easily interchangable - observation from catch-all, where it happens amongst users).
   d) Can we add description of a "processing step" ? (we will need to be able to describe various instances of processing steps - sample preparation, image acquisition, sample collection and others by words when protocol is missing).
   e) Methods - Metody; Methodology - Metodologie - it just cought my attention that the translation is not exact in the vocabulary.
2. I wanted to ask if it is necessary to use option "others" or if there would be some other way f.e.: "the option is missing in version xxx"?

Thank you for answers / considerations of my comments. I might come up with more through the process.