Thanks, Kevin. That does answer my question. So, wording it in my own  
terms (in hopes that someone else understands it in this way), the owl  
definitions do not include the various rules (such as those in LCSH)  
that govern how simpleTypes can be used in combination with other  
simpleTypes, nor about which simpleTypes can legitimately be used in  
bibliographic headings as simpleTypes, uncombined with any others.

Is there any intention to include such rules in the RDF of authority  
data? Is there any intention to identify certain Classes as being, for  
example, free-floating subdivisions? For example, in id.loc.gov, this  
entry:
    http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476
is defined as a "chronological subdivision". The fact of it being  
named "subdivision" I presume is significant. Will that information be  
available in the madsrdf?

kc

Quoting "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Karen,
>
> I agree with Simon - let's not use "properties" in this instance and  
> instead use "Classes" or "types."
>
> You asked: "In the case in which a subject heading consists of only  
> one "subfield" (which is the same element that exists in a simple  
> property), is a complexSubject created for this singlet?"
>
> In short, no.  Whether enforced in the ontology at this time (or  
> whether it is enforceable in the first place), a SimpleType - such  
> as Topic, Geographic, Temporal - can be used as a standalone subject  
> heading.  A ComplexSubject type is, to use a slightly different  
> semantic label, essentially a pre-coordinated heading.  To reword  
> the documentation ever so slightly:
>
> ComplexSubject, HierarchicalGeographic, and NameTitle types, all of  
> which are ComplexType types, are designed to handle records that are  
> the aggregation of two or more SimpleType records.
>
> A NameTitle, for example, is used when the first component is a Name  
> type and a following component is a Title type.  But, if you had a  
> Topic type followed by a Temporal Type, the aggregation of those two  
> terms (the resulting pre-coordinated heading) would be a  
> ComplexSubject, because it is composed of two SimpleType types  
> (Topic and Temporal) *and* it does not meet the necessary conditions  
> to be a NameTitle (or HierarchicalGeographic).
>
> Does this help?  If not, I may be misunderstanding what you mean by  
> "simple properties."
>
> Cordially,
>
> Kevin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List  
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 18:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [MODS] madsrdf: Question about subject
>
> Hi. I've read through the madsrdf document and tried to find the
> answer to this among the examples, but didn't succeed. So apologies if
> I missed something obvious.
>
> There are simple properties like Topic or Geographic, then there are
> complex subjects that are made up of combinations of simple
> properties. In the case in which a subject heading consists of only
> one "subfield" (which is the same element that exists in a simple
> property), is a complexSubject created for this singlet?
>
> The thrust of the question revolves around distinguishing a simple
> property from an actual subject heading, given that not all simple
> properties can be used as subject headings. Or am I misunderstanding
> things?
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet