Hi All
I have some concerns about the Library proposals which I will summarise
for you:
1. 'captured' - in my view there is a severe conceptual problem with
this proposal tied up with the 'one to one' rule
2. 'version' - I think this is completely misplaced, in my view, as a
sub-property of 'description'. I don't agree at all that it can be
viewed as a narrowing of the semantics of the 'description' property, in
fact if we accept this term it would be best as a completely new
property, not tied to an existing property - although I acknowledge that
there could be arguments made for 'version' as a sub-property of
'title'.
3. 'holding location' - apart from the RDA issue, this property already
exists in the Collections AP (as posted by Tom earlier) and also in AGLS
(see below) and I don't see how we could agree to create another term
that does the same thing as existing ones.
Cheers
Andrew
------------------
Agls:availability
<rdf:Property
rdf:about="http://www.agls.gov.au/agls/terms/availability">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en-AU">Availability</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-AU">How the resource can be obtained or
accessed, or contact information.
</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.agls.gov.au/agls/1.2/"/>
<dcterms:issued>2007-12-19</dcterms:issued>
<dcterms:modified>2007-12-19</dcterms:modified>
<dc:type
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdf:resource="http://www.agls.gov.au/agls/1.2/availability"/>
</rdf:Property>
|