My understanding was that the current elements would be removed in
favor of the "aligned" predicates and classes.
Perhaps we could get some clarification about what this alignment
process actually entails? The last thing the world needs is yet
another bibliographic crosswalk.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for this J örg
> While obviously plans to align bibframe elements to other RDF ontologies
> would be welcome, I'd be very interested to understand that arguments
> against simply adopting existing vocabularies where they exist?
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 09:23, Jörg Prante <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From my understanding, there will be a process of "alignment" of Bibframe
> elements to other RDF elements. In the current phase of early Bibframe
> developement, I assume the focus is still on creating native Bibframe
> elements and vocabulary.
> There have been some work closely related to Bibframe
> - the W3C provenance incubator group charter
> - ONIX for Marc21 and for RDA (ONIX in RDF still ongoing work?)
> - METS-PREMISE in RDF
> - EAD to Europeana Data Model RDF
> - ...
> The results would be very interesting to see them aligned to Bibframe
> A wider perspective would be aligning the DataCite RDF
> to Bibframe. This would exceed the traditional MARC scope and would reveal
> the power of RDF by integrating research data environments seamlessly with
> Bibframe'd library catalog metadata.
> Also expanding the view to publisher activities is helpful to get some
> impressions for what could be done if there was Bibframe-powered data. I saw
> for an experience of a publisher when traveling a market-driven path using
> RDF on XML-based metadata.