Print

Print


I think my comment was unclear-- my understanding from my cataloging colleagues was that most people use "RDA" by itself to mean the cataloging rules, and "RDA Vocabularies" to mean the RDF work to which you refer below. If that's just a local habit, I apologize for relying on it inappropriately and creating confusion. My comment was entirely to the cataloging rules. 

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Tim Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It is incorrect to say that RDA as a standard does not invest in or is not amenable to the RDF metamodel or to being expressed as linked data. In fact, RDA has already been modeled as RDF, and the entire element set is now available, in a variety of RDF flavors, at http://www.rdaregistry.info andhttps://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies (in addition to the RDA value vocabularies, which were already available as SKOS: http://rdvocab.info). And talk about proliferation of predicates! There are 955 RDA properties divided among five classes (WEMI + Agent)[1].