Mac, there is no such thing as "order" in RDF. If there are two 
statements that use the same property (e.g. bf:note) there is no order 
implied between them and there's no "record" in RDF that would maintain 
an order between two or more properties. There is a function called 
"rdf:List" but that is not a highly used function, and I highly doubt 
that anyone is anticipating using rdf:List for notes. In general, what 
was done with order in the card/record world is done in RDF with the 
meaning of the data element.

It seems to me that the problem is that there are many different 
"messages" that are currently being coded as bf:note. If there is any 
time when a specific note must be identified for some purpose, say as a 
particular display, then that note type has to be differentiated. This 
should be solved by having different types of notes, not by imposing an 
order on undifferentiated notes.

My guess is that a clear statement of use cases for different types of 
notes would take this discussion further. What are the uses for 
different notes? Under what circumstances will notes be acted on 
(searched, displayed)? (Note that the answer to this may not entirely 
coincide with the note elements currently defined in MARC or ISBD. We 
should ask the question without prejudice and see what answers arise.)


On 6/9/15 1:05 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> It concerns me that so many RDA specific notes (as well as MARC ones)
> just map to <bf:note>, which means that if there is to be consistent
> note order, it much be created by the cataloguer, not left to the
> machine.
>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
>    ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600