OregonDigital
Investigate use case for adding RBMS CV
Descriptive summary
https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/rbmscv.html
This may be useful for current content or in the future. Remediation of current uncontrolled data may be necessary.
Expected behavior
Make a decision on whether to add this CV and to what field(s).
Related work
Link to related tickets or prior related work here.
Accessibility Concerns
Add any information here to indicate any known or suspected accessibility issues for this ticket
I had some communication with LC regarding an issue in the data...
In querying the Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloging (RDF available at id.loc.gov), I found that 1470 terms are typed using the following IRI: http://www.loc.gov/mads/rdf/v1#Genre This term does not seem to exist in the MADS/RDF vocabulary; it seems to be an invalid IRI. Can you provide any additional information regarding this issue?
...and received some helpful info -- the issue has been resolved 🎉
Thanks for finding the issue. Each individual term in RBMS is correctly typed as madsrdf:GenreForm: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/rbmscv/cv00937.rdf But you’re right; on the main scheme page, the collection list showed them all as type madsrdf:Genre. That was my mistake; I’ve fixed it. I saw from your gist https://gist.github.com/briesenberg07/6d50b297b39fa92a0f8fc5b903003413 that you are getting the full list using rbmscv.json, and it sometimes times out. If you want faster response times, ask for the rdf xml: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/rbmscv.rdf or even the ntriples: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/rbmscv.nt We store the data in rdfxml, so it’s just coming right out of a stored document. The json is being calculated, and I think it’s maintaining a hierarchy that is hard to do in json or something. I will see about making a full download available as well. We have many of our bigger datasets available that way here: https://id.loc.gov/download/ You will get more from the vocabulary by following the links on that rbmscv.rdf, to the individual terms. Many have scope notes that say how to use them, in addition to narrower and broader terms.
Metadeities discussed at 2025-01-14 meeting. RBMS has significant overlap with Art and Architecture Thesaurus and does not appear to contain most/all ONS worktype values. Metadeities will continue to investigate prejudicial terms in RBMS to potentially describe harmful content in metadata field.
I told metadeities I'd look at RDF for terms from RBMSCV RDF and RDF for properties configured in fields where we may use them. I don't think there are any data-model conflicts which would result from modelling for the RBMSCV terms, which is really simple -- they are instances of madsrdf:GenreForm.
Metadeities discussed RBMS CV prejudicial terms at 01/21/2025 meeting. Decided to hold off on adding RBMS vocab to Work Type and Form of Work fields until a new collection or set of works require the terms, specifically prejudicial terms. Metadeities will return ticket to queue and assign priority if/when that use case arises.