On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Rob Styles wrote:
> <http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> <rdf:Type> <http://
> someschema.com/contributortypes#Composer> .
> <http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> <rdf:Label> "Claudio
> Monteverdi" .
> <http://example.com/work/123456789> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> creator> <http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> .
>
> so the Class http://someschema.com/contributortypes#Composer is used
> to indicate that Monteverdi is a Composer, and the property http://
> purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator used to indicate that he composed
> whatever 123456789 refers to.
I think this discussion is moving in the right direction.
Using the methods outlined above there will: 1) much less ambiguity
regarding the relationships between works, creators, subjects,
publishers, etc., and 2) make it much easier for computers to
supplement the process of creating new relationships between works,
creators, subjects, publishers, etc. This is true since the data/
information about the content of these entities is manifested using
relational database normalization techniques.
Moreover, it might be good to point out, again, that everybody here
is offering something. XML for the techno-weenies. Classification for
the catalogers. So often it is not so much about the "what" of our
work but the "how". The what doesn't change very fast. The how
changes very quickly. The RDF above is an illustration. What we are
doing is description and classification -- an age-old library thing.
How we are doing it is with XML -- new, shiny, and the language of
the 'Net. Nice.
--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame
(574) 631-8604
Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 09:57:28 EST