ore:aggregates (wiki) vs pcdm:hasRelatedObject (ontology)

[azaroth42]

... which is correct?

I'm in favor of pcdm:hasRelatedObject. I think this was the decision way back when, but in moving the docs around from pillar to post, they seem to have reverted.

[escowles]

+1 to pcdm:hasRelatedObject, and siding with the ontology when the wiki differs.

[jpstroop]

yes, I think pcdm:hasRelatedObject is where this landed

[tpendragon]

...Really? When did that happen? At the end of the Portland talks I believe it was ore:aggregates. To reiterate, why the choice for hasRelatedObject?

[tpendragon]

So the history I can find is:

1. Portland talks said if you have related objects, ore:aggregates. That way you can order alongside hasMember items, and both are aggregated.
2. Hydra::PCDM work started, and the method was called #related_objects. Ticket opened at Objects can have related objects. samvera/hydra-pcdm#14 and predicate conversation ensued.
3. Diagram updated to have hasRelatedObject, ore:aggregates was never really discussed again.
4. Added pcdm:hasRelatedObject #6 Added to ontology.

[escowles]

I believe the argument was this: https://github.com/duraspace/pcdm/pull/4/files#r31881404

Basically, creating our own property to define the semantics as we intend them, since the ore:aggregates description is much broader.

[tpendragon]

Alright. We'll have to update hydra-pcdm, but that's fine.

[tpendragon]

@escowles When this gets 👍'd and fixed, mind making a ticket in hydra-pcdm?