I am also interested in getting some information about the abstract
concepts behind Bibframe, like a formal definition.
Not an exact answer to your question, but for my own data modeling work
about library items and holdings, I specified the following generic
approach (and is still incomplete yet). The notion of "resource",
"property", and "statement" are equivalent to the Semantic Web/RDF effort:
"A resource is a thing that can be described by making statements about it
and can be identified. The statements specify the properties of the
by asserting values to the properties, and they specify typed links to
A web resource is a web page that can be described by making statements
it and can be identified on the web. The statements specify the properties
of the web resource by asserting values to the properties, and they
specify typed links to other resources.
A library item is a physical thing that can be identified in a library.
A library item can be made available for library services.
A library resource is a library item or a right about a thing a library
can make use of (for example, a license for accessing a web resource).
A library resource can be offered by a library service to the public,
to patrons, to librarians, or to other libraries.
A library catalog resource is a description by making statements about
a library resource. The statements specify the properties of the library
catalog resource by asserting values to the properties, and they specify
to other resources.
Library holdings are descriptions of library resources to make them
Am 03.05.13 10:08, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg:
> This paper:
> is trying to say what it is all about. The description of the model
> begins with some definitions:
> Creative Work
> - a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the cataloging item
> There is, however, nothing in this paper to say what a "resource" is,
> nor an "item", or what "cataloging" means. While AACR2 notoriously
> avoided a definition of "work", Bibframe shifts the difficulty to other
> terms it leaves undefined. From the text, one can conclude only that a
> "resource" is just about anything, but to be a work, it must have a
> "conceptual essence". Of course it is very difficult, that much has
> to be admitted. But are we to take St. Augustine's road and say that
> if nobody asks, we know exactly what these terms mean, and only when
> pressed for a definition we get into trouble?