On 15/05/13 10:03, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> I suspect what follows will be mostly unsatisfying.
They are less unsatisfying than I had feared, which gives me hope. Thank
you for your concrete answers to concrete questions.
>> (e) why does the definition from page 10 of the report not appear
>> on http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html Has the definition changed?
> -- It's not different. In fact, the definition at bibframe.org is virtually a word-for-word copy from the document. It is, however, truncated to only the absolute essence at bibframe.org. As we continue to update the vocabulary, we'll likely add more complete and encompassing definitions.
Would it be possible to have at least a link from
http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance to the definitive definition of
Instance in the model? I believe that this is what humans are going to
expect and be looking for when they go to http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance
>> (a) what is the status in the bibframe model
>> of http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm ?
> -- The conceptual notion of the "Final report" would be a BIBFRAME Work (with IFLA as the creator). This page - http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current_toc.htm - which is basically the landing page for the *entire* report would be an Instance of that Work. However, the page you direct to in your question is not the same as the link I provided. Your link is to a distinct chapter of that Work. One option for the model would be to create a BIBFRAME Work resource for the chapter, which, being a BIBFRAME Work, would have an Instance (represented by your link). There would be a defined relationship between the BIBFRAME Work for the entire report to the BIBFRAME Work for Chapter 3. We've been experimenting with this idea.
The concept of chapters of a Work being different Works from their
parent Work when and only when carried by a particular carrier worries /
confuses me deeply; I'll certainly follow your experiments with interest.
>> (b) what is the status in the bibframe model
>> of http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/fig3-1.jpg ?
> -- Personally, I think this could be more granular a level of cataloging than we'll be feasible for most (time and money), but it could be treated in the same fashion. The image could be a BIBFRAME Work (with its own Instance) and be associated with a Work resource of the chapter it is from.
Cataloguing, as the human activity we know, is unlikely to be widespread
at this granular a level. That doesn't preclude libraries using the
BIBFRAME model at this level.
For example, I maintain http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/ which contains full
text works as HTML (also in parallel with PDF, page images and ePub).
Every file / URL on that website is part of a CIDOC model (with the
exception of some branding-related content). All the navigation links
are derived from the model. All licensing links are derived from the
model. Decisions about which files to bundle into ePub are derived from
the model. Faceted search and parallel-language search is based on the
model (full-text aspects of the search not so much). Authority control
(for people, works, places and ships) is based on the model. Everything
is based on the model.
The NZETC is a collection of an academic library and the decision has
come from on high that the NZETC is to take concrete steps to move
closer to, and be more integrated with, other library collections. This
will be orders of magnitude easier if BIBFRAME can be used, since it
makes deep interoperability with core library systems a realistic
I am happy to generate illustrated use-cases based on our work if that
would be helpful.
>> (c) shouldn't the HTML Instance be defined as
>> the http://bibframe.org/vocab/unionOf all the HTML pages that make up
>> the HTML version of the report plus all their page dependencies (css,
>> images, media files, etc)?
> -- unionOf, though lacking a definition at bibframe.org, comes from a pre-defined relationship in MARC used mainly (if not exclusively) for serials. It is too early to tell whether it has such a narrow use in the future, but it is meant to capture the notion that "This Work is the product of a merger of these two other Works." I believe what you are trying to do is something completely different. And, FWIW, the attempt to sensibly record how all the parts of an HTML document logically fit together is not something we're focused on.
Could a note of this fact (maybe with a link to the definition) please
be added to http://bibframe.org/vocab/unionOf ?
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/