Just because dc:isPartOf (for example) is really a URI (yeah, in the example it is a CURIE), and wouldn't be acceptable in its full form, so I wonder whether some other attribute might be better.  I'm not sure what, though.  @corresp and @sameAs take pointers, but the guidelines are quite explicit that they're for linking to other elements.  Maybe we need something new...

Hugh

On Jun 18, 2011, at 3:32PM, Conal Tuohy wrote:

> On 18/06/11 07:11, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>> At our IDP project meeting, we've just been talking about RDF-ish links for bibliography too.
>> 
>> In sum, we'll use relatedItem/@type and ptr inside bibl to indicate relationships between bibliographic records like dc:isPartOf (article part of journal or book) or bibi:cites / bibo:reviewOf / bibo:reproducedIn. We're still thinking about the details, but something like:
>> 
>> <bib>
>> ...Stuff about the current bibliography entry...
>> <relatedItem type="dc:isPartOf">
>>     <bibl>
>>       <ptr target="http://example.com/uri_of_related_record"  />
>>       ...Stuff from the related record you want to display in the current record...
>>     </bibl>
>>   </relatedItem>
>> </bibl>
>> which would express an RDF triple like
>> 
>> prefix dc:<http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
>> <http://example.com/url_of_the_current_record>  <dc:isPartOf>  <http://example.com/uri_of_related_record>
>> 
>> I'm not sure I'm happy using @type this way—it needs more pondering. Maybe a linking attribute would be better.
> Why is that, Hugh? It seems OK to me (assuming for your example that the declaration for the "dc" prefix appears at the root of the TEI document - is that tei:relatedItem/@type value a CURIE?).
> 
> Con
> 
> -- 
> Conal Tuohy
> eResearch Business Analyst
> Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative
> +61-466324297
>