Print

Print


> On 14 May 2015, at 17:13, Wallis,Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> On 14 May 2015, at 16:54, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>> At which point a consistent model, that is easier to construct, parse and render (e.g. always a resource, sometimes a blank node) is clearly better.
> 
> Which brings me back to my vocabulary consistency point - will all strings be entities - or at least pseudo entities using blank nodes?
> 
> If not, and some properties will be defined as being string properties; that is fine but it is indicative of the basic documentation and examples needing to be very clear on when you have a string and when you have [at least] a rdfs:label wrapped in a blank node.

I don’t see a problem with allowing string properties when there is no question of there being a resource - but that’s a decision BIBFRAME should make, not the implementors. The problem I have is with letting the implementor/data dictate whether you have a string or a resource (or a date etc.) in any particular instance.

>  Remembering a natural understanding of RDF and its principles will not be an attribute of most of the folks applying whatever we end up specifying.
> 
> 

This seems like an argument for not using RDF for BIBFRAME, not an argument for using RDF in a particular way

Owen