> On Jan 6, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Movie = work + primary (usually original) expression
>> Version = current expression + manifestation
>> We had a table for libraries and items were modeled as a relationship between libraries and versions (manifestations), which I think is essentially similar to Bibframe's holdings. The attributes of the items could then be hung off the relationship.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would be interested in any additional details you might be able to share on this point.
I may have spoken too quickly on this point. I was just struck by the fact that in both cases information about particular items is modeled as a relationship between the instance/manifestation/publication and the library. In our case, we really didn't say anything more than that a library owns a publication, but in the future we might want to say something about availability or account for the case where a library actually only has part of a publication (the bonus disc is lost or to deal with the fact that OCLC says that presence or absence of accompanying material doesn't justify a new record).
Will there be an equivalent to the MARC holdings format in Bibframe? Are holdings annotations going to be defined as part of Bibframe or will they be left up to individual institutions or groups of institutions? Is there a plan to deal with more complex situations like serials? There is only a simple example in the Bibframe report:
<!-- Holdings Annotation -->
<annotates resource=”http://bibframe/inst/frbr-1997-09-01:0” />
<institution resource=” http://bibframe/auth/org/
<callNumber>025.3 F979 1998</callNumber>