I have posted more on the use of literals and non-literals in RDA on my blog: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/
Here is my conclusion: RDA, as a set of cataloging rules, should not pre-determine whether elements are transcribed as literals or whether they are represented with surrogates for the values. A step related to RDA in which RDA is defined as data elements that can be encoded for processing should allow literals for all data elements, but should be defined in such a way that non-literals could be used for any data element. Another step, that encodes RDA as the library world's bibliographic record, should define non-literals for all vocabulary lists, and, where possible, for all units of measure or data element attributes (such as the type of publication date). It should also define optional non-literals for all authority-controlled elements. This would allow us to move increasingly in the direction of using non-literals. Of course, our data elements themselves are (or should be) defined in such a way that they are identified with URIs, and therefore are non-literal values. This should be an obvious step in moving our data in the direction of the semantic web. -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
