Thank you for your comments-- they will help to improve the document. We have made this draft RDF available because of requests, and we don't consider the documents in a final form, so any comments or corrections are welcome. While we are tied up with other things right now and not actively working on this RDF, we will be making any corrections that are identified. We wanted to share our work on this even though it is still in draft for those who would like to experiment with it.
On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Saaha Metsärantala wrote:
>> the Library of Congress has developed MODS/RDF
> Thanks for that! It will be VERY interesting to read!
> I have not read all these examples, yet. Nonetheless, I wonder why the mods files have an "xml" file name extension and are sent with the application/xml Content-Type HTTP response header. According to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6207#section-2 edited by Ray, the suggested file name extension is .mods and the suggested media type is application/mods+xml for mods files.
> Furthermore, the rdf files are send with the text/plain Content-Type HTTP response header whereas
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt suggests application/rdf+xml as a media type.
> What are the reasons for these unexpected choices?
> I also noticed that
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/v1/ does not comply with the recommendation described at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#style-color-contrast which reads:
>> "If specifying a foreground color, always specify a background color as well (and vice versa)"
> In some circumstances, this is highly significant for readability.
> I hope this helps!