On 1/27/14, 8:31 AM, Simon Spero wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

> Could you send a corrected example? Thanks.

Here's a simple example, since I am using the tablet from the bed and there is a 70lb hound dog asleep on my foot:-)

:Fred a :Weasel;
     :annotation [
         :hasBody :FredsBody.

Ah, ok. In fact OA annotations purposely do NOT use blank nodes, and the original examples weren't "annotations" in the OA sense. so let's go back to the original example from the MARC document, which is what I'm curious about, and take the easier example. The document gives two possible BIBFRAME fragments:

work1  a  bf:Work;
            bf:contributor  <URI for illustrator's name>.

work1 a bf:Work
            bf:contributor   relationship1.
relationship1  a  bf:Related;
            bf:identifier  <URI for illustrator's name>.

I have no problem with #1. #2 puzzles me, though. In this case, "relationship1" is probably a blank node, so I"m going to remove the semantics from that:

work1 a bf:Work ;
            bf:contributor   _b123.
_b123  a  bf:Related;
            bf:identifier  <URI for illustrator's name>.

I'm still trying to understand what this might mean.  I don't find bf:Related defined (there is a class Relationship that appears with But the blank node should have the semantics of the object of bf:contributor. To say that the object of bf:contributor is a relationship doesn't seem right, especially when the node contains an Agent and a Relationship (I'm assuming that relationshipID is a property of class Relationship). How does this result in the statement:

    work1 has illustrator <URI for illustrator>  [and NOT for illustrator's name, btw]

Instead, it seems to say:

    work1 has a contributor and the contributor is a relationship between "ill" and "<URI for illustrator>".

In other words, I don't see how this states that the <URI for illustrator> has relationship "ill" with work1.

I hope someone else sees it clearly.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet