Tim, I’m not sure I agree with your objection as it relates to RWO anyway; in fact, we are starting to implement RWO at ID like this:
There is no adminInfo (madsrdf or bibframe) , and if you want to more about the authority record for Rineer, A. Hunter, you follow :
<madsrdf:isIdentifiedByAuthority rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n94064763/>, which is where admin info more properly belongs.
I don’t have links from the authority to the rwo (yet), but for names you can substitute “rwo/agents” for “authorities/names” on any Name authority.
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
LA308, Mail Stop 4402
Library of Congress
Washington DC 20540
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Thompson
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Administrative Metadata proposal
Hello, happy 2016 to all.
I've had a lingering question about the BF 2.0 Admin Metadata proposal. 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.
a bf:Person ;
rdfs:label "Rineer, A. Hunter (Amos Hunter), -1985" ;
a bf:AdminMetadata ;
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?
Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library