RE: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?

> ah, I misunderstood what a bib was, sorry, serves me right for rushing
> it. It might clarify things to have typed Bib and Book objects perhaps.

OK, I didn't make that clear. Sorry. Given that understanding then, I'd like
to re-ask my question to see if your answer still holds. Assuming we want
our RDF to represent a bibliography containing pointers to various books, do
you still feel the following is a reasonable way of modelling that
relationship (ignoring the question of typed vs untyped nodes)?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:bibterm="http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"
         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <bibterm:Bib>
         <bibterm:book rdf:parseType="Resource">
                 <bibterm:year>1994</bibterm:year>
                 <dc:title>TCP/IP Illustrated</dc:title>
         </bibterm:book>
         <bibterm:book rdf:parseType="Resource">
                 <bibterm:year>1992</bibterm:year>
                 <dc:title>Advanced Programming in the Unix
environment</dc:title>
         </bibterm:book>
     </bibterm:Bib>
</rdf:RDF>

Thanks,
Howard