RE: Bibliographic Record Schema

Apologies for the previous incomplete message!

> 
> 
>  > 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:
> <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?

Cheers Richard