A group of colleagues and I were looking at the RDA element "has series statement" [Toolkit link] recently. We were considering using this element in a linked-data implementation. An initial question was, "Would the value of this element (in an LD implementation, the object of a triple with rdam:P30106 as predicate) be a resource typed as rdac:Nomen? Looking at [Recording methods], and considering a series statement which is a string-structured or unstructured-we saw the following statements:
<> a rdac:C10007 ; # Manifestation rdam:P30106 _:01 . # series statement_:01 a rdac:C10012 ; # Nomen rdan:80068 "[series statement string]" . # Nomen string
BUT there are a few details which make me wonder if such an implementation would actually be correct, in terms of the RDA/RDF ontology, intended use of RDA/RDF properties, etc.
One is the fact that rdam:P30106 has no rdfs:range.Another is the fact that Toolkit guidance for series statement includes…
"Recording an IRIThis recording method is not applicable to this element."
…which would seem to me to indicate that the element (the RDF property rdam:P30106) should not be used to express a relationship between a resource which has rdf:type Manifestation and one which has rdf:type Nomen.
Any thoughts on whether use of rdam:P30106 as per the above code snippet would be "correct"? Thanks all!
<> # IRI of instance of manifestation
rdam:P30277 "Appellation string" ; # statement 1: manifestation has appellation that is a string
rdam:P30277 nomen1 . # statement 2: manifestation has appellation that is a nomen
nomen1 rdan:P80068 "Appellation string" . # statement 3: the instance of nomen has nomen string (i.e. an appellation that is a string)
<> rdam:P30106 "Series statement string" .
225 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL | 60601 | USA
Request a New Community