[open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition
A.Haffner at d-nb.de
Tue Jul 6 07:50:42 BST 2010
I think in general it's not necessary to set any rdf:types. The resource
turns into a particular type during interpreting a particular property.
But setting rdf:types is important in cases using new specified and not
standard compliant properties (i.e. extensions to SKOS)
Regarding the German translation of MARC 21:
First of all, last year we changed to MARC 21 as German interchange
format, so MAB is gone...
I already asked a colleague if we have a kind of table representation
just comprising the code translations...more information comes up soon!
Von: public-xg-lld-request at w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request at w3.org]
Im Auftrag von Ross Singer
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Juli 2010 04:03
An: William Waites
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Antoine Isaac; Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld at w3.org;
List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data; public-lld
Betreff: Re: MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition
My question was more based on the fact that I don't think anything
should have explicitly set multiple rdf:types in there.
If so, I'm curious to what they are.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, William Waites <william.waites at okfn.org>
On 10-07-05 10:35, Ross Singer wrote:
> Jeff, which resources have multiple rdf:types? Of the muscomps, they
> should all only be mo:Genre.
I think it is perfectly valid to have multiple types. At the
very minimum everything is an rdfs:Resource whether
stated explicitly or not. If something breaks when it is
explicitly stated because it doesn't like multiple types I
think that something is itself broken...
William Waites <william.waites at okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965 Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948 Edinburgh, UK
RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-bibliography