I've been working with the "flat" RDF/XML output from LC's marc2bibframe
scripts, and I'd like to understand a little better why some things have
been modeled as blank nodes, whereas others have been presented as separate

For example, bf:Provider and bf:Identifier are blank nodes, but bf:Title is
a separate resource with its own URI. Why not make everything a resource?
Or is there a good reason for keeping some things as blank nodes, in terms
of querying, modeling, etc.? I know this ground has been tread before, but
I'd like to come at it from the perspective of integrating newly created BF
data with BF data that has been converted from MARC. Greater clarity about
the way resources are being modeled, in this regard, would help facilitate
production workflows moving forward.


Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library