At Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:05:07 -0800, Karen Coyle wrote: > > Quoting Erik Hetzner <e...@e6h.org>: > > > At Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:17:47 -0800, > > >> > > > > As I parse it, we have here the triples (in almost-turtle): > > > > W <http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html#Manifestation> M1, M2, M3, ... . > > M1 a <http://rdvocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/workManifested> . > > > > I think it should be: > > > > W <http://rdvocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/workManifested> M1, > > M2, M3, ... . > > M1 a <http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html#Manifestation> . > > > > Is that correct? > > I admit that I am not sure. It could be: > > X is a work manifested by Y > > or > > Y manifests (workManifested) X > > The RDA description is: "A work embodied in a manifestation." That > would seem to make Work the subject, except that RDA was not written > with triples in mind, so the directionality isn't necessarily > conscious in the definition. But note that it says that the domain > of the property is Manifestation. That almost makes it seem like > it's a relationship between two manifestations. I once asked on the > RDA list what it meant and got two opposing answers. I'll happily go > with whatever can be generally agreed on! It isn't entirely clear to > me.
Hi Karen, What I meant to be getting at is that the rdf:type of the resources M1, M2, ... is (currently) workManifested, while the predicate linking W and M1, M2, ... is frbr:Manifestation. I think this is backwards; they rdf:type should be frbr:Manifestation, while the predicate should be workManifested. As to which direction workManifested points, or its domain or range, I have no clue, but I assume you are correct here. best, Erik _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list Ol-tech@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org
