Hello all:
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 structured description of an RDA Entity is a string that is a kind of Nomen"
- "an unstructured description of an RDA Entity is a string that is a kind of Nomen"
Based on this, it seemed to us that a linked-data implementation of "(has) series statement" might look something like the following (Turtle syntax; use of blank node versus IRI as Nomen resource is somewhat arbitrary):
<> 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 IRI
This 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!
Sincerely,
Benjamin Riesenberg
------------------------------
Benjamin Riesenberg
they/them
Metadata Librarian
University of Washington
------------------------------