> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and all
> standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the manifestation (aka
> instance), not the work.
-- Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are two ISBNs in one bib record.  One for the hardback, the other is for the paperback.  Of course, there is one LCCN in the 010.  

If ISBNs are used as "splitting" points - meaning that two BIBFRAME Instances would be created from the one MARC bib record in the above example - where does the LCCN go?  Neither Instance? The first Instance created from splitting the ISBNs from the 020? Both Instances?

If the answer is neither or both, what is the role of the LCCN (or another traditional description identifier, such as an OCLC number) in the new ecosystem?

Cordially,
Kevin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:40 PM
> To: Ford, Kevin
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> 
> Kevin quoted:
> 
> >> Is there a theory beyond the mappings? In this example
> >> (http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/BFbook.html), the LCCN is mapped to the
> >> work ...
> 
> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and all
> standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the manifestation (aka
> instance), not the work.
> 
> I too am concerned by the omissions and mapping.  The bibliographic
> universe is far more complex than Bibframe to date seems to assume.
> 
> 
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
> 
>