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.

    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?


[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