New proposal: add a plain text field analogous to isPartOf in GBL 1.0

[karenmajewicz]

Background

We have a continued need for a plain text field to indicate a custom grouping or collection.

• Under GBL 1.0, this was entered in dct_isPartOf_sm as linkable plain text.
• Under OGM Aardvark, the options for this are:
  • Create a separate record to represent the collection. Use the pcdm_memberOf_sm field or dct_isPartOf_sm to establish a relationship
  • Use the uncontrolled dct_subject_sm field for custom values

Options from other schemas

• mri:aggregateDataSetName - from ISO to group datasets
• schema.org/targetCollection - to indicate a collection; the addition of target helps distinguish the URI from the value of collection (The term collection is a value for the Dublin Core Type field as well as the OGM "Resource Class" field.
• schema.org/about - a very general field that can take a subject
• ddi:group - general concept of grouping items.
• ead_subcollection

Suggestions for custom options

• gbl_collection_sm
• gbl_grouping_sm
• ogm_collection_sm
• ogm_subcollection_sm

Considerations

Pluses:

• This would let users more easily search for the values in the catalog
• This would maintain values for anyone still looking to migrate from GBL 1.0

Cons:

• Adding a new field might make things confusing or simply add too many options. We already have a 5 categorization fields:
  • Resource Class: short controlled vocab of top level groupings
  • Resource Type: short controlled vocab of secondary groupings
  • Theme: ISO Topic Categories, with OGM specific spellings
  • Subject: uncontrolled, used for LOC, or ISO variant spellings
  • Keyword: hidden, uncontrolled tags
    We also have several relationship fields: Member Of, Is Part Of, Source
• The label "Collection" would conflict with how Member Of is labeled.

Related issues

#43
OpenGeoMetadata/GeoCombine#143
Geo4LibCamp 24 discussion

[karenmajewicz]

Cornell has already created a custom field for this: cugir_collection_sm

[kgjenkins]

Another advantage is that you could turn this text field into a facet.

[karenmajewicz]

Here's a new idea:

Label	Grouping or Collection
URI	tbd
Field Name	gbl_groupingLabel_sm
Field Type	string
Obligation	Optional
Multivalued	Yes
Purpose	To provide a human-readable label for grouping related records by curatorial judgment or local project themes.
Entry Guidelines	Enter one or more free-text values that reflect internal or institutional grouping schemes. These values are not standardized and may overlap with other records.
Commentary	This field is intended for soft groupings that do not neccessarily imply formal collection or series membership. It can be used to cluster records under subcollections like “Election Districts” or “Microsoft Building Footprints.” Use this field when you prefer to provide a simple label without defining a structural relationship.
Controlled Vocabulary	No
Example Value	["TIGER/Line Files", "Coastal"]
Element Set	GBL

[karenmajewicz]

The BTAA Geoportal implemented this as b1g_localCollectionLabel_sm a few months ago. It was experimental at first, but seems to have been very useful and working well.