In my experience, you can't tell much about what you'd really want to
know for user needs from the indicators or subfield 3's, at least in my
catalog.
FRBR relationships probably don't work because the destination of an
arbitrary 856 is not neccesarily a FRBR entity, and even if it is
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-relation
This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined
in the DCMI Abstract Model
(http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December
2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention
with a
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
So dc:relation does sound like the right vocabulary element for generic
related web page page, thanks. Is the value of dc:relation _neccesarily_
a URI/URL? I hope so, because otherwise I'm not sure dc:relation is
d'oh, s/dcterms:related/dcterms:relation/ (thanks ksclarke). I also
meant to point out that rdfs:seeAlso is another option.
//Ed
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
So dc:relation does sound
rdfs:seeAlso++
On Jul 8, 2010 6:01 PM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
d'oh, s/dcterms:related/dcterms:relation/ (thanks ksclarke). I also
meant to point out that rdfs:seeAlso is another option.
//Ed
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
So dc:relation does sound like the right vocabulary element for
generic related web page page, thanks. Is the value of dc:relation
_neccesarily_ a URI/URL? I hope so, because otherwise I'm not sure
dc:relation is sufficient, as I really do need
So in our marc records, we have these 856 links, the meaning of which is
basically some web page related to the entity at hand. You don't
really know the relation, the granularity is not there.
So, fine, data is data, there ought to be some way to model this in
standard XML/RDF/DC/whatever,
Isn't that pretty much what dc:relation is for? From
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#elements-relation
Label: Relation
Definition: A related resource.
Comment:Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource
by means of a string conforming to a formal
Mike:
For sure dc:relation works, and has some subproperties that a bit more
specific, but it's still pretty much a blunt instrument. I know I sound
like a broken record, but RDA has a LOT of relationships to choose
from--these are the WEMI-to-WEMI relationships:
Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:42 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] schema for some web page
Isn't that pretty much what dc:relation is for? From
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#elements-relation
Label:Relation
Definition: A related
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
Of course, subfield $3 values are not any kind of controlled vocabulary, so
it's hard to do much with them programmatically.
A few years ago I analyzed the subfield 3 values in the Library of
Congress data up at the Internet
And one more (tiny, compared to edsu's) data point. You can see the $3
values from over 10,000 records that had 856 fields from an original 1
million records from the UC Berkeley catalog here:
http://roytennant.com/proto/856/?string=%243
in all of it's, uh, gory detail. But I agree that there is
12 matches
Mail list logo
