Dear Phil,

Thanks for the questions.  

> 1.) BIBFRAME Instances:  The document says that Instances include
> relationships to appropriate BIBFRAME Authorities related to
> publication, production, and distribution of the material resource.  My
> question (like many other of mine) comes from musical sound recordings.
--  One of the early experimenters is looking specifically at how music might best be represented in the BIBFRAME model.  I don't know if that experimenter has investigated the issues you raise in any detail yet, but I would be surprised if they hadn't been looked at already.  As we mentioned, the early experimenters have agreed to share their explorations but the experimentation period is ongoing so I doubt there is anything concrete to share yet.

> 2.) Annotations: Can annotations themselves be annotated?  I'm assuming
> that if Stanford held 6 copies of an Instance that we would add 6
> annotations, one for each instance.  If we needed to note that copy 6
> had had preservation treatment, or was missing pages, would we add an
> annotation to the annotation for copy 6?
-- To your first question: I've wondered the same.  I've not yet thought of a really good use case to annotate an Annotation, but it is early days still.  Technically speaking, there is really nothing inhibiting such a thing presently.  As for your additional questions, instead of annotating an Annotation, it would make sense to me to model the Holding resource so that it was capable of capturing whether something had received preservation treatment or was missing pages, because the Holding resource is specific to the "held" copy in question.  An Annotation is designed to augment another resource (normally a Work, Instance, or Authority) and it seems the information you want to record is inherent to the "held" copy itself.

Your additional questions have been noted.  Many of them touch on relationships between resources which is an area with lots of questions still.  We are looking at defining the relationships that we absolutely need, because they are already supported in our data (7XXs) or because they are new/different (RDA), at LC (but only in the last few weeks).  That work will likely provide a basis for future discussions.  It might be we can identify a way to handle continuing resources with the relationships we already have and then turn to those relationships that haven't been codified, such as relationships between Instances of the same Work.

Warmly,

Kevin


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Puzzlements
> 
> All,
> 
> I, too, was impressed with the BIBFRAME draft model.  It approaches the
> transition in a practical way in the best sense of the word.  Rather
> than think about what I wish were different (at least at first), I have
> some questions based on the model as it is currently defined.
> 
> 1.) BIBFRAME Instances:  The document says that Instances include
> relationships to appropriate BIBFRAME Authorities related to
> publication, production, and distribution of the material resource.  My
> question (like many other of mine) comes from musical sound recordings.
> Will relationships to Authorities for names (performers, etc.) be made
> at this level (the description of BIBFRAME Instance doesn't forbid this
> although it doesn't explicitly mention them either) or will each
> realization of a work be considered a new BIBFRAME Creative Work and
> these associations made at that level?  Authorities for subjects could
> be particularly confusing as a performance of a Bach harpsichord piece
> on the piano could have different subjects in regards to the Work and
> the Instance.
> 
> 2.) Annotations: Can annotations themselves be annotated?  I'm assuming
> that if Stanford held 6 copies of an Instance that we would add 6
> annotations, one for each instance.  If we needed to note that copy 6
> had had preservation treatment, or was missing pages, would we add an
> annotation to the annotation for copy 6?
> 
> In general, BIBFRAME seems very centered around resources that have
> been published in some fixed form (perhaps the term "Instance" unfairly
> makes me lean towards that conclusion).  I wonder how BIBFRAME will
> handle continuing resources, those things like websites that evolve
> with time.
> Will there be multiple Instances of a work reflecting an evolving
> resource at a particular time?  Will annotations need to include
> concepts of time?  I also wonder about implied relationships between
> Instances of the same Work.  I some cases, as in a textual work made
> available in different formats, the content may be identical.  In
> others, like recordings of an aleatory piece for music, the Instances
> may vary wildly.  Does the BIBFRAME model make any assumptions about
> the relationship between Instances of the same Work?  Will there be a
> place for us to explicitly define these varying degree of sameness?
> 
> Philip
> 
> --
> Philip E. Schreur
> Head, Metadata Department
> Stanford University
> 650-723-2454
> 650-725-1120 (fax)