On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Still looks pretty limited to me. What academics cite isn't a full
> bibliographic universe. No music, no films, no way to do realia. And citing
> isn't the same as bibliographic description. Don't get me wrong, I think
> it's very complete as a citation format, I just don't think it meets other
> needs. The right tool for the job... and all that.

But again, that's where RDF comes in, they even address the other
ontologies to defer to:
http://wiki.bibliontology.com/index.php/Development_Brainstorming#Possible_ontologies_to_Reuse


> Somehow, though, they have to work together, at least where they are
> describing the same thing.

Right, but that's how it would work.  If these resources were modeled
in RDF, they'd have URIs.  What you would do is to say 'bibliographic
things' you'd use bibo attributes with the URI.  To say work grouping
things you'd use FRBR/FRAR attributes with the URI.

So as long as they're using the same URIs, they're describing the same thing.

-Ross.