Apologies for cross-posting
I'd like to bring a proposal for use of an RDA unconstrained property in RDF metadata for digital collections to colleagues at my institution. In this collection at present, the property rdaw:P10004 is used to capture genre/form terms from the Getty AAT (ex "matchbooks," "postage stamps," etc.). But since the resources are not typed as rdac:C10001, and RDF metadata statements about the resources also include much non-Work-level information (collection names and submission and modification dates, for example) I think use of an RDAU property to record these values is preferable.
I'm guessing that rdau:P60058 "category of resource" is a better choice than rdau:P60944 "category of entity," primarily because "resource" seems to denote the four WEMI resource entities, which the resources being described here are probably some combination of.
The implementation guidance for these properties which may be obtained from the Registry is minimal (which is, I believe, by design), and I don't have Toolkit access at present, so if possible I'd like to ask:
- Whether anyone has experience implementing either of these properties (rdau:P60058 "category of resource" / rdau:P60944 "category of entity")
- Whether my assumption that "has category of resource" is the best choice for my use case is correct
Thank you!
------------------------------
Benjamin Riesenberg
they/them
Digital Collections Metadata Librarian
University of Oregon Libraries
------------------------------