[CPSV-AP v.3.1.1] Requirement/recommendation to use controlled vocabulary for dct:type in LifeEvent and BusinessEvent

[jimjyang]

Shouldn't it be at least recommended to use Business event for dct:type in the class Business Event, and Life Events for dct:type in the class Life Event?

Now both Business Event and Life Event are just subclasses of the class Event without further specification, while dct:type in the class Event doesn't say anything about which controlled vocabularies shall/should/may be used.

[EmidioStani]

Hello @jimjyang ,

yes the recommendations to use the Business and Life events classifications will be added in the next release.

As business and life events are specific than Event, it is better to mention about classification at that specific level, so the model keeps its flexibility.

This issue will be open until the next release is published

[fabian-santi]

Hello,
Small question. In version 3.2.0, on the classes [Business Event] and [Life Event], the "type" is a [0..n] code, referring to the controlled vocabularies. Is the idea that each implementation define their own events, and we link these events to the controlled vocabularies, or are the controlled vocabularies the events themselves (what I originally thought).

[EmidioStani]

Hello @fabian-santi ,

Indeed each instance of Business Event or Life Event has its own type to classify it, as already in the previous versions, for example:

@prefix cpsv: <http://purl.org/vocab/cpsv#> .
@prefix cv: <http://data.europa.eu/m8g/> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.com/> .

ex:publicService1 a cpsv:PublicService ;
  cv:isGroupedBy ex:event1 .

ex:Event1 a cv:LifeEvent ;
  dct:type <http://data.europa.eu/ox8/life-event/BIR> .`