Print

Print


Hello, happy 2016 to all.

I've had a lingering question about the BF 2.0 Admin Metadata proposal[1].
It seems to take a step in the right direction, in that it makes admin
metadata easier to isolate, but in the end I don't see how it is
conceptually any different from the BF 1.0 approach.

The property bf:adminMetadata is still a property of the description of a
resource, not of the resource itself, and as a wise man once wrote, "The
same URI cannot identify both a document that describes the resource and
the resource itself."

This becomes more apparent when the resource being described is, for
example, a person, rather than an abstraction like bf:Instance.

<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n94064763#RWO>
    a bf:Person ;
    rdfs:label "Rineer, A. Hunter (Amos Hunter),  -1985" ;
    bf:adminMetadata [
        a bf:AdminMetadata ;
        bf:changeDate "2009-09-28T18:43"
    ] .

It's not the RWO that has admin metadata, but <
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n94064763>, the authority record that
describes the real person.

Wouldn't it be more coherent to recommend that separate URIs be used for
RWOs and the documents that describe them, as exemplified by the hash URI
above?

Best,
Tim

[1] http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/pdf/bf2-draftspecadmin-10-29-2015.pdf


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