Print

Print


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Riley, Jenn wrote:
>>
>> Change for 3.4 approved on April 8, 2009:
>>
>> - Add type="reviewOf" and type="references" to <relatedItem>. The
>> committee recognized the need and opportunity to fundamentally change how
>> relationship types are designated in MODS 4.0, but felt in the meantime 3.4
>> would benefit from the introduction of these two relationship types that
>> have been specifically requested by MODS implementers.
>>
>
> Note that the relationships defined in FRBR will be registered in the NSDL
> metadata registry. A provisional version (because IFLA hasn't decided yet on
> what URI to use) is at:
>
> http://sandbox.metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/64.html
>
> Ideally, MODS could use URIs to indicate relationships when these become
> available.

I'm a little skeptical about the direction of these URI efforts in
terms of implementation details.

A URI like <http://ifla/namespaces/frbr/Relationships/1001> isn't even
valid (though I'm sure that will get resolved). And using numbers for
the critical part is just bizarre by any modern web standard (yes, I
know it's common practice for libraries, but that's in part my point),
when it's trivial to serve up localized metadata for these URIs.

I commented on issues related to this on some blog (I forget who runs
it), but never got a reply.

<http://metadataregistry.org/blog/2009/03/09/multiple-languages-and-rda/>

Would be nice to see this (pretty simply, actually) issue resolved.

Bruce