To whom it may concern,
I was at the RDA Update forum at annual, and heard there was a task force
being formed for helping ease the implementation. Mr. Hall (PLA Liaison)
asked if I would like to volunteer, and I am considering doing so. My
director and my husband are supportive of this, but
When FRBR first came out, we approved, because it was the first time there
had been an attempt to standardize the definitions of work and edition that
we had been using for hundreds of years, and we thought these definitions
would help us communicate more effectively with system design people.
Our previous posting concerned the entity-relationship model underlying
FRBR. The linking concerns we are about to discuss relate to both the RDF
model and to the RDA implementation of FRBR's model.
The RDA developers are now beginning to look to the RDF specifications for
the semantic web
On 7/2/07, Martha Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When we look at the RDF specifications themselves (
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/), they might as well be written in
Greek for all of the information they convey to us. However, just from
using the web, we can see that links over the web
On 7/2/07, Simon Spero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a more contrived example, one could specify that an Expression that is
a Parody must express a Work that has more than one Expression.
Oops - I meant to say an Expression that is a Translation.
I blame 6 hours on the phone with ATT.
So ... with apologies in advance for asking a possibly ignorant
question ... can you make the following statement in RDF? That is, can
the same sort of entity be both a subject and an object?
Work2 is a parody of Work1
And you would not need to make, in addition, a statement like
On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Martha Yee wrote:
Can anyone on this list point us to working entity-relationship
model applications accessible over the web in which we can see one
entity being used in the user-readable string that identifies
another entity in all displays (both lists and single
Again here I'm having trouble figuring out how to express what I'm
used to being so obvious that I don't put it in words--because of my
particular training and experience, it is indeed not to be expected
that others with different training and experience will see the same
thing.
But I can
Exactly. RDF is a very flexible framework, and in a particular RDF
application you could make such a statement, and you would indeed not
need to make the reciprocal statement---and the computer scientists,
software engineers, and RDF-istas would say that you SHOULD not make
the reciprocal
But it would perpetuate one of the nastiest MARC21 features: the
punctuation at the field or subfield end.
Why not include it in $i?
Mac
10 matches
Mail list logo
