They would be in RDF, as well. A URI has no more or less inherent meaning than an alpha-numeric code. They are both symbols for a more sophisticated concept. In Bibframe, Finnish data would not have triples with Finnish predicates, just objects (no different than MARC).
still new to this list but do find it fascinating...Mac's point...>I do like talking in unambiguous MARC field and subfield codes! The
ambiguity of language, and reuse of terms with new meanings, creates
problems.seems well taken...I was working on a project this spring with a number of languages that I'm not familiar with...remember looking at MARC records in Finland and the Netherlands to help understand the MARC records I had created from another metadata format...the focus was 245 titles both parallel and multiple...since I know 245 subfields, my questions were easily answered..regards,danaOn Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Karen said:By "names" do you mean relationship terms in $e? Or do you mean the
> Most of these "bad" names are close variations on the LC list,
>missing ", etc.".
name of the person, family, or corporate body in $a? The context
would seem to suggest you mean relationship terms. Wouldn't be be
less confusing to call them that?
I do like talking in unambiguous MARC field and subfield codes! The
ambiguity of language, and reuse of terms with new meanings, creates
roblems.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
Dana Pearson
dbpearsonmlis.com