<http://bibframe.org/resources/fmP1422484598/14290423instance21> a bf:Instance, bf:Monograph ; bf:derivedFrom <http://bibframe.org/resources/fmP1422484598/14290423.marcxml.xml> ;If "http:...instance21" identifies a RWO, then the next line doesn't make sense - a RWO, in this case an actual book, can't be derived from a MARC record. If instead "http:...instance21" identifies a bf:Instance graph, not the thing for which it is a surrogate, (and which then is consistent with the second line, above) then we appear to not have an identifier for the RWO. What that means is that if you attach a book review to the bf:Instance, you are saying that the book review is reviewing the bf:Instance graph, not the book it represents.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
I think this is very well stated up to this point:
“But that line is also saying that this bf:Instance is an RDF description.”
Note that “RDF description” (as in <rdf:Description>) is not an ontological class. It is a bizarre artifact of RDF/XML to accommodate the potential lack of an explicit type assignment. Note, for example, that rdf:Description isn’t manifested in other RDF serializations like a real class would be. It drops out.
It’s not surprising that people assume it is an ontological class, though, because Striped RDF/XML has some syntactic sugar that allows you to swap it out for one of the rdf:types, if you want to.
RDF/XML is evil. J
-- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600