Back to place and date...
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Alistair Miles
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Not directly related to any scenarios, I found that rda:placeOfCapture
> is a sub-property of rda:placeAndDateOfCapture, which doesn't look
> right. This looks like a case where Tom Delsey's "sub-elements"
> pattern got wrongly translated to RDF sub-properties, where rather it
> should be modelled in RDF as an n-ary relation.
This still leaves us with the question of what to do with these in the
registry. I don't think there is an 'n-ary' capability, whatever that
would look like. Also, I'm not sure that these empty properties make
sense in the property list... I think you would want to manage them in
an application profile. Here are some examples from RDA:
Place and date of capture (empty)
- Place of capture
- Date of capture
Publication statement (empty)
- Place of publication
- Parallel place of publication
- Publisher's name
- Parallel publisher's name
- Date of publication
If we can imagine any use of these properties OUTSIDE of the
particular empty node, then I think they need to be separately defined
as properties, not as dependent on the empty node. We also have the
problem that RDA doesn't make use of classes so that there is a great
deal of repetition in the property/element list. As an example, there
are four different sets of elements that are the same as the
Publication statement, but that substitute one of these words for
Publication: Production/Publication/Distribution/Manufacture. And as
you can see, they also share some meaning with the "capture" concept,
in terms of place and date. I immediately want to take these and
rationalize them by defining simple properties:
- date
- agent name
- place
... and allowing any element to have a 'parallel' (which is the same
value in a different language).
Unfortunately, at the moment we are trying to be true to RDA's
definition of its properties, so I need to sit on my virtual hands and
not mess with what they have defined.
Any ideas what we can do with our empty nodes/Tom's sub-elements,
given this info? In many cases we just entered each element as a
separate property, including the empty node one. Is there a down side
to this solution?
kc
--
-- ---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|