Just to focus briefly on the suggestion of recommending the use of the
RDA properties:
> The RDA standard is set to be published early in 2009, and
> the DCMI/RDA TG has already registered provisionally the
> final list of properties and subproperties approved by the
> Joint Steering Committee (the body engaged
> in developing the standard). These properties, currently
> 250 of them,
> can be viewed at
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/1.html
>
> There are amongst these properties, the following:
>
> Date of capture (subproperty of Place and date of capture), at:
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/272.html
>
> Edition statement, at:
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/2.html
The description of the latter includes a comment that says
"Associated with the FRBR Manifestation entity."
It stops short of saying formally that the domain of the property is the
class of FRBR Manifestations, but there is at least a suggestion there
that that is the case.
The Libraries AP is not - in its current form at least - based on FRBR
i.e. the things the are describing are not FRBR Manifestations, so I
think that potentially there is an issue there - though, yes, it may be
that the RDA folk decide to define their properties more "loosely" and
remove that association with FRBR Manifestation, and defer it to the
description set profile rather than associating it with the property
itself.
More generally, I do think we have to be careful with this sort of
issue: it seems to me most properties "out there" _aren't_ defined (like
the DCMES/DC Terms) to be applicable to (more or less) any resource;
they are defined in the context of specific models/ontologies, to be
applicable to specific classes of resource, and we need to be sensitive
to that when recommending their "reuse".
Pete
|