Clarification and Mapping of accessionYear – Cataloguing vs.Acquisition #762
Description
At the V&A, we are in the process of mapping our collection data to the Linked Art model and require clarification on how to model the accession year.
At present, we’re using the following pattern:
{
"type": "Encounter",
"classified_as": [
{
"id": "https://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300054626",
"type": "Type",
"_label": "Accessioning (collections management)"
}
],
"timespan": {
"type": "TimeSpan",
"_label": "accessionYear",
"begin_of_the_begin": "1919-01-01",
"end_of_the_end": "1919-12-31"
},
"carried_out_by": [
{
"id": "https://vocab.vam.ac.uk/Group/V&A",
"type": "Group",
"_label": "V&A"
}
]
}
]
The accessionYear field does not reflect the year the object was acquired. Instead, it represents the year the object was catalogued — i.e., when it was formally recorded in our system.
Given this distinction, we’re wondering:
- Is Encounter the correct event type to represent this kind of “recording” or “registering” activity?
- Is it appropriate to classify this as Accessioning (collections management), given that no acquisition occurred?
- Are there any required or recommended modelling patterns for this kind of data?
- Would it make sense to use this pattern, but use the type ‘cataloging’ from aat to qualify the encounter event? https://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300054628
We’d appreciate guidance on how best to represent this event, especially where no acquisition action took place and the intent is to document that the institution already had the object.