separable / inseparable objects

[beaudet]

In Linked Art, is there a requirement or recommendation for conveying the separability of humanmadeobject parts? I'm currently taking the approach of minting a local Concept for separability with a metatype of positional attributes and applying the local Concept it to the child part with classified_as. It has an equivalent of "detached" in the AAT although "detachable" would be a better Concept if one exists.

{
    "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/v1/linked-art.json",
    "id": "https://id.nga.gov/c3a0304c-ce0e-4f8e-81e6-8118d07d47be",
    "type": "Type",
    "_label": "separable",
    "classified_as": [
        {
            "id": "http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300010269",
            "type": "Type",
            "_label": "positional attributes"
        }
    ],
    "identified_by": [
        [
            {
                "type": "Name",
                "content": "separable",
                "classified_as": [
                    {
                        "id": "http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300417193",
                        "type": "Type",
                        "_label": "titles (general, names)"
                    },
                    {
                        "id": "http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300404670",
                        "type": "Type",
                        "_label": "preferred terms (primary)"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    ],
    "equivalent": [
        {
            "id": "http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300131111",
            "type": "Type",
            "_label": "detached"
        }
    ]
}

[azaroth42]

To date we've not tried to distinguish between separable and non-separable parts because the "separability" is hard to judge.

Some examples

• The chess piece was removed from the game (trivial, because it's an aggregate object)
• The drawer was removed from the desk (it's a part, but a part designed to be removed)
• The frame was removed from the painting (it's not easy to remove, and risks damaging the artwork proper, but it's still not destructive per se)
• The arm of the statue was removed carefully in order to do something and intended to be reattached (damaging but carefully so)
• The arm of the statue was removed from the body [with a sledge hammer] (Very damaging!)
• The writing was removed from the parchment by scraping it off with a knife (Destruction)

I think the chess piece, the drawer and the frame are "separable" but the arm and the writing especially are not separable. The writing as material rather than text (or painting as oil paint matter vs visual item) would be (I think) need to be modeled as a Feature rather than a Part to properly distinguish ... but we don't do this for the same reason we don't distinguish separability generally.

[beaudet]

These might be some interesting possibilities for conveying the notion of separability for internal use cases although they seem to state fact rather than the potential of separability with "detached" and "attached".

https://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300135444

For the near term, is it reasonable to mint a custom term for "separable" to support internal use cases and draw an equivalence to "detached" or do you think that's a step too far in the sense that it might be confused with the state of the object's current configuration?