W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Metadata guidelines for the UK RDTF (Resource Discovery Task Force)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:17:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4D5463E5.9080403@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Monica,

>> That seems very relevant indeed. I did not have time to read it all, but could it be that some observations feed into our own report?
> I see that some of the XG members have been responding to the document in the comments.
> I think some of the questions posed by the authors of the guidelines may be seen as typifying the sorts of questions that decision makers currently face

Yes, very good point. And very interesting for us.

> e.g. Question from the authors: Is the strong encouragement to use FRBR here problematic for the library community?
> and 'Question from the authors: The current recommendation to model using FRBR, CIDOC CRM and EAD is quite open. Do we want to recommend a particular way of modelling these standards in RDF?'
>  From 'Data Model Guidelines'[1] in the comments stream.
> Ralph Le Van responded 'Iíve not seen a consensus model for FRBR as RDF, so if you have one, please publicize it and recommend its use.'
> Some of the subsequent discussion in that set of comments was around FRBR as an appropriate model (rather than on linked data), and pointers were provided to ISBD, RDA
> [1] http://rdtfmetadata.jiscpress.org/data-model-guidelines/
>> Also, the Resource Discovery Taskforce vision [1] looks like a use case. But it does not seem to be in the JISC open bibliographic data use cases from last year. Or am I mistaken?
> I am not sure (but have not gone to check the Open bibliographic cases!) - I'll try and find out from Paul who I think has better knowledge of both.

Thanks a lot for this!

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 22:17:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC