Property hasInvolvement is required, clean-up around Involvement

[JuergenGrupp]

The class Involvement is referenced from EditorialObject via hasContributor or hasPublisher or hasCreator . While the latter two (hasPublisher, hasCreator) are relicts from the time before Involvement did exist and both pointed to Agent, the first (hasContributor) was introduced, when the class Involvement was still named Role. Proposed changes:

• For the current modelling, the property that links EditorialObject and ProductionJob to Involvement should be named hasInvolvement according to our naming conventions.

• hasCreator should be kept as property of Annotation , but it should link to Agent , not to Involvement , as it currently does.

• hasPublisher should be removed, as it is fully replaced by an Involvement classified as a publisher.

[RendersKoen]

Hi @Juergen, is there also an inverse property planned? Would it be called isInvolvementIn then?

[JuergenGrupp]

Good question, thank you @RendersKoen ! I think an inverse property would make sense, as it underpins the notion of Involvement as an entity in its own right. The name could be isInvolvementIn as you suggested is a good candidate, but isInvolvementFor, isInvolvedIn, hasEditorialObject or relatesTo would be options, too. The EditorialCommittee will discuss and propose.

[JuergenGrupp]

If hasInvolvement is introduced instead of hasContributor or hasPublisher or hasCreator, then also the relation from ProductionJob to Involvement should become hasInvolvement

[RendersKoen]

Hi @Juergen, this is still planned? Though currently it's possible to connect the involvement to an Agent and an Editorial work through

Involvement hasAgent only Agent EditorialObject hasContributor only Involvement

it would be clearer indeed if it would be implemented as above...

(we've downloaded version 2.0 now from the main branch)