W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Bibliographic Record Schema

From: Richard <listserve@richardlennox.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:38:02 +0100
To: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>, 'Richard' <listserve@richardlennox.net>, 'www-rdf-interest' <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1BVtM2-0005EK-9Q@spain.vosn.net>

 > I need to say in 
> > the simplest way possible that there is a list of contributors:
> > 
> > 1 marcrel:aut #XYZ
> > 2 marcrel:ill #ABC 
> > 
> > such that they point to a foaf:Person.
> OK, in that case, as bib:contributors and marcrel:(xyz) are both
> properties of your  resource of type bib:Citable, and it's the
> contributors you wish to order, I think you'd need to use them as
> distinct properties, something like bib.xml attached (which generates
> the graph attached as bib.png).

However this leads to the point of usability - Is an average user
willing to spend the extra time creating the two sets of contributors
both pointing to the same foaf:Persons - one defining the ordering and
one defining the types? By not ordering the contributors, this
information may be lost in particular where the ordering of the
contributors infers the level of contribution. 

The ideal that I am striving for would be a combination of the two. 
With the type of contributor specified within the ordered list. While
slightly more verbose this seems to do the trick:
    <bib:Contributors rdf:parseType="Resource">
          <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
<marcrel:aut rdf:resource="#Kamereddine" /></rdf:li>
         <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource"><marcrel:aut
rdf:resource="#Nederpelt" /></rdf:li>

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 10:38:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:51 UTC