eCatalogue meeting 07/04/2022
Date: 07/04/2022
Participants: Cecile Guasch,Veit Jahns, Natalie Muric
Model editor: Eugeniu Costetchi
Note editor: Andreea Pasăre
Discuss GH 317
Continuing adding definitions to epo:Item attributes:
-
epo:hasKeyword - we should take into consideration that this attribute should be used for the entire concept and not only for the instance; the approved definition for the moment is the following: “List of words (e.g. synonyms) to make the item searchable.
WG Approval 07/04/2022” -
epo:hasName - should have a similar definition with all the other hasName attributes in the model.
-
epo:hasExternalSpecification One option is to link this to epo:Document by using an epo:ProductSpecification class.
From a catalogue point of view we need to have a document as an abstract class which holds mainly the metadata of the document plus an additional class which models the actual binary content of that document. Examples that can be used: FRBR or DCAT.
We can use a part of DCAT for modelling the binary content of the document.
Even in DCAT, the dcat:Distribution has an URL for download and does not provide a binary format of the content.
We can further discuss the possibility of providing the binary format of the document in the ePO model.
For the moment, the epo:hasAccessURL attribute was added to epo:document class with the following definition:
“Location where the resource can be accessed.
WG Approval 07/04/2022”
Link the epo:Item class to a newly created epo:ProductSpecification class (which is an epo:Document) with the following definition:
“Document providing information about an item.
WG approval 07/04/2022”
The epo:ProductSpecification class is included in epo-ecat:eCatalogue and is modelled in the following way:
This should be further revised.
Discussing the possibility that the document might not be an epo:Document.
