-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 06.11.2014 um 16:41 schrieb Karen Coyle:
> Also... it might make sense to treat some of the material-specific information
> (maps, music) as coherent extensions to BF rather than mixing them together in a
> general "notes" rubric. I see no reason why detailed maps information couldn't
> be its own graph, annotating the Instance, available when desired but treated as
> an optional extension for those who don't need it. Development of such a body of
> metadata could be given to whatever organization maps librarians use to
> represent them. The "one record to rule them all" may not be the best way to go,
> and with the ability of RDF to link together any graphs, we now have technology
> that would allow this kind of specialization.
IIRC this kind of reasoning was at the very bottom of the decision to employ RDF
instead of legacy bibliographic "data formats" for bibliographic descriptions.
Maybe the primary objective were (scholarly) communities outside of libraryland,
but I don't consider specialized sub-communities all that different.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----