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]> 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