 |
 |
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 > >