cd
cd copied to clipboard
tdwg
Class:RecordLevel
| Parent | ObjectGroup |
| Label | Record Level |
| Definition | The machine-actionable information profile for the collection description digital object. |
| Usage | |
| Required | Yes |
| Repeatable | Yes |
| Relationships | Range: NA | Class-level properties: ObjectGroup, OrganisationalUnit, CollectionDescriptionScheme, PersonRole, Reference, Identifier |
| Potential standards/vocabularies/ontologies to adopt | |
| Notes | Linked to the RDA PID Kernel recommendation (https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/RDA%20Recommendation%20on%20PID%20Kernel%20Information_final.pdf) |
Comment from @wouteraddink on another issue:
The header properties are properties of the collection description, the digital object. Could be renamed to CollectionDescription or, to link with the RDA PID Kernel recommendation (https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/RDA%20Recommendation%20on%20PID%20Kernel%20Information_final.pdf), something like KernelInformationProfile
I think that renaming it to CollectionDescription (now that CollectionDescription has been renamed to ObjectGroup) makes sense, and also aligns with CollectionDescriptionDimension and CollectionDescriptionMetric in defining the use of the overall digital object. But would also link to the RDA PID Kernal Information recommendation and make sure that we're aligned with it.
Need to check that the attributes are in line with the PID Kernal Information Profile
I think the name of this class is still causing some confusion. One option might be to rename it 'Record-level' to align with the same concept in Darwin Core?
Renamed the class, for secret reasons (consistency, mainly, also good taste 😜)
Not sure what CD has to do with records? collection descriptions could be stored in any format: digital objects, triples or relational database records. In DwC it makes sense as that aims to exchange tabular data (CSV files) with records
In future discussions if might be an idea to spit rights out into its own class.
In addition to the last comment, there is the suggestion to make the RecordLevel class a generic class.
See also https://github.com/tdwg/cd/issues/50#issuecomment-1171358504 which describes how to include information about the person or organisation credited with creating/minting the LtC record