Isn't that pretty much what dc:relation is for? From
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#elements-relation
Label: Relation
Definition: A related resource.
Comment: Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource
by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system.
On 7 July 2010 23:32, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So in our marc records, we have these 856 links, the meaning of which is
> basically "some web page related to the entity at hand." You don't really
> know the relation, the granularity is not there.
>
> So, fine, data is data, there ought to be some way to model this in standard
> XML/RDF/DC/whatever, right?
>
> It's not dc:identifier, because dc:identifier ends up including all sorts of
> URIs that are not really "web pages" at all, they are just identifiers of
> various kinds. The marc 856s are URI's, it's true, but they really _aren't_
> URIs given as "identifiers", they do not neccesarily identify the item at
> hand at all, but they DO neccesarily lead to a web page with some "see also"
> relationship to the entity at hand.
>
> So... how would you include this in, say, a DC set in XML or RDF? Is there
> any common way people have done this in the past?
>
> Yeah, I _could_ just expose MODS or MARCXML or what have you. But I'm
> looking for some vocabulary that will handle marc 856s, but also in the
> future handle other "some kind of see also link" from other formats, when I
> add other formats into my corpus. Any ideas?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
|