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

RE: Bibliographic Record Schema

From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:25:55 +0100
To: 'www-rdf-interest' <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001c4497f$107258a0$2392268a@ulpcpj>
Richard said:

> 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:
> <rdf:RDF>
>   <bib:Citable>
>     <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>
>       
>     </bib:Contributors>
> 
>    </bib:Citable>
>  </rdf:RDF
>
> This appeard to be valid with the Validator but what are 
> peoples thoughts on it?

I think this says the two instances of foaf:Person are the authors
(marcrel:aut) of the intermediate nodes (i.e. the objects of rdf:_1,
rdf:_2)? See graph attached.

It seems to me that's different from saying they are the authors of the
instance of bib:Citable, which I think is what you want to say? cf. your
examples A1, A3, where you do use marcrel:aut as a property of the
instance of bib:Citable. 

Pete


bib2.png
(image/png attachment: bib2.png)

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 11:24:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:07 GMT