LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  November 2012

BIBFRAME November 2012

Subject:

Re: "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and,only one BIBFRAME Work"

From:

Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:41:23 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

Quick point of clarification… the proposed BIBFRAME model is a one to many relationship between Works and Instances. And while the wording on page 10 clearly could be improved the RDF/XML serialization example as well as the snapshots of the Linked Data interfaces over this data (Figure 8) are designed to help put this into practical perspective. 

--eric

On Nov 28, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If we're going with a one-to-one model between Work and Instance, why not a "one" model? Admittedly I am a "unitarian" when in comes to FRBR group1 and have long argued for a "whole" rather than a set of parts. Remember, bibframe is the data structure, not the cataloging concepts and FRBR is a conceptual model. If it works best for catalogs to think in terms of WEMI I'm all for it. But that doesn't mean that the data structure has to be divided into four parts -- the purpose of the data structure is to store the data in a way that you can do a whole variety of interesting things with it.
> 
> Even more than unitarian, I espouse the heresy that not all communities and applications will define WEMI in the same way (two parts, six parts, a gradation?), so pre-defining it in the library data could be a barrier to interoperability. Call a "work title" a "work title" and let others decide how that fits into their bibliographic view. Also, limiting relationships to a particular group 1 entity is, IMO, a great danger to our ability to interact with non-library data.  In other words, we can define our data elements to mean what we want them to mean, but we shouldn't try to control how others will use them or what they can link them to.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 11/27/12 11:51 AM, Eric Miller wrote:
>> Hi Diane, Philippe,
>> 
>> In this draft model, the aggregation would be done at the (BIBFRAME) Work level. A set of collected stories, for example, would in fact be a Collection (Work) of other Works. Works are typed and a Collection is just one kind of Work. What connects these Works together are a set of defined relationships that create a Web of Works. The paperback (or hardback, or …) version of this collected Work would be instances of this Collection (but there may be other instances associated with the individual Works as well).
>> 
>> Whats missing from this primer are more detailed use cases and example applications which help demonstrate more concretely this approach. I'm hopeful these will be made available soon. Nothing helps ground any model (and serialization, vocabulary, constraint layer, HTTP services, etc.) like practical examples.
>> 
>> Diane, as you know no good idea goes unpunished ;), if there are specific examples that you would be willing to suggest that would be extremely helpful. I can't claim a quick turn around, but I'd be happy to give a go at representing these via BIBFRAME.
>> 
>> --eric
>> 
>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Diane Hillmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Philippe:
>>> 
>>> I had the same response, immediately thinking of things like collected stories (single or multiple authors) and serial issues. These are certainly fairly common in bibliographic metadata, and were not well handled in MARC or MODS. The FRBR model, though admittedly a complex beast, accommodated these materials, and gave some hope that there could be ways of handling those kinds of materials in ways that a machine could understand, rather than (as usual) depending on the human user to figure it out.
>>> 
>>> Diane Hillmann
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 9:13 AM, "LE PAPE, Philippe" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Everybody,
>>>> 
>>>> Colleagues have already expressed their concern about the vanishing of FRBR Expression entity in Zepheira's "BIBFRAME" model, but I was rather puzzled by this:
>>>> 
>>>> "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and,only one BIBFRAME Work." P. 10.
>>>> 
>>>> What about (FRBR) Manifestations embodying more than one (FRBR) Work then? Will there be something like compound (BIBFRAME) instances? Or will the aggregation be done at the (BIBFRAME) Work level?
>>>> 
>>>> Ph.
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> Philippe Le Pape
>>>> Mission Normalisation
>>>> 227 avenue Professeur-Jean-Louis-Viala
>>>> 34193 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5
>>>> Tél.  33 (0)4 67 54 84 67
>>>> Fax  33 (0)4 67 54 84 14
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

--
Eric Miller
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager