Print

Print


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.


viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlRbm6oACgkQYhMlmJ6W47NskwQAlj9oYHvDfkOnMWOD7NkGiKNI
0yclGf7IadkmgwWQG/aBuyS0k9JJY68bRAzWc+/h/ppPypJIZ32ey/UWPcUlBBhq
nYBjyWondFLx/IuGDl76YGApvkhWwdLMlwQADchsupbwQ19a+aDSsJLs/u//s8Mp
jhBQsXWmYEpz53i97mI=
=TFe5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----