{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62/events","html_url":"https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62","id":172800866,"number":62,"title":"Remove the Work class from the Works extension","user":{"login":"escowles","id":856924,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/856924?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles","html_url":"https://github.com/escowles","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/escowles/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":10,"created_at":"2016-08-23T20:38:58Z","updated_at":"2016-08-24T01:54:57Z","closed_at":null,"body":"The [works extension](https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/blob/master/pcdm-ext/works.rdf) includes a Work class for representing the top level of an item (e.g., an entire book as opposed to its pages).\r\n\r\nDiscussion of the Work class focused on problems, such as an item being a Work in its own right, but also part of another Work (e.g., a page of a book, which is a map that might be included in a map collection).  The consensus was that because of the different contexts, it didn't make sense to label something as a Work, and it would be better to just make everything an Object and use context to figure out whether something was an independent entity or part of another Object.\r\n\r\nShould we remove the Work class from the Works extension and/or [PCDM 2.0](https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/wiki/PCDM-2.0)?\r\n\r\nSee #53 for preliminary discussion."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/comments/241936038","html_url":"https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62#issuecomment-241936038","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/duraspace/pcdm/issues/62","id":241936038,"user":{"login":"acoburn","id":1265883,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1265883?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn","html_url":"https://github.com/acoburn","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/acoburn/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-08-24T01:54:57Z","updated_at":"2016-08-24T01:54:57Z","body":"w/r/t ResourceMaps, I do not see them as an ideal way to express and describe an aggregation of resources. If I were to invent a vocabulary, I'd see no problem with putting descriptive metadata directly on the aggregation-like resource.\r\n\r\nThat said, `pcdm:Object < ore:Aggregation` and `pcdm:hasMember < ore:aggregates`, and so by RDFS entailment, any `pcdm:Object` is also an `ore:Aggregation`. And furthermore, according to the ORE spec, any `ore:Aggregation` `MUST` have a corresponding `ore:ResourceMap`.\r\n\r\nAnd as much as I find ResourceMaps unnecessary, I find that _simply ignoring_ a spec to be even worse and not something I can recommend to my institution. To put this another way, if PCDM is not interested in following the semantics of ORE, why doesn't it just use DC: `pcdm:Object < dcmi:Collection` and `pdcm:hasMember < dcterms:hasPart`?"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"acoburn"}}