The Identification Committee at BISG has wrangled with this idea for years
as well. What we've come to conclude is that "work" means different things
to different constituencies. Each online retailer, for example, might
define "work" independently - because collocating and grouping is part of
their individual value propositions; publishers might have a more
constrictive view of "work". And librarians might have a still different
view. So rather than define "work" across the book industry, the committee
more or less decided to leave that definition to each sector.
Which is one reason why ISTC did not gain adoption in the US. (Another is
that it would group together editions published by different publishers -
who did not want to refer consumers to competing editions.)
On 10/3/13 5:23 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 10/3/13 1:18 PM, Godby,Jean wrote:
>> But the problem with doing nothing is that we would have no
>>conceptual underpinning for asserting that some collections of creative
>>works have the same intellectual content a problem that publishers
>>have not addressed in any meaningful way. So we continue to look for a
>>solution.
>
>It has been addressed in a meaningful way, IMO, and the proposal is here:
>
>http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor
>
>This proposal allows one to "cluster" bibliographic information at any
>level of abstraction (from Work to Item) around having the same
>intellectual content (for some definition of "intellectual content").
>The advantage with this proposal is that it does not require the
>producer of the metadata to determine which is the canonical Work and
>which is the variation on that Work. It also allows one to create
>relationships between bibliographic descriptions at exist at different
>levels of detail and abstraction. A wikipedia page for a book could be
>related to an Amazon entry for a particular edition of that book by
>using "CommonEndeavor".
>
>The problem with "example of a work" (or instance, in BIBFRAME parlance)
>is that it loses meaning if someone declares the wikipedia page for the
>Work to be an example of the Amazon product entry. By doing so, you
>implicitly have defined the Amazon product to be the Work, and the
>wikipedia entry to be an instance or example of that work.
>
>I don't think that "workness" is a universal concept, and I'm not sure
>that even if we did define it clearly what percentage of the population
>would have the necessary knowledge to know a work from an instance (or
>example, or manifestation).
>
>kc
>
>>
>> All the best,
>> Jean
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>><[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Vladimir Skvortsov
>><[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME
>>position paper is now available
>>
>> Hello Jean,
>> That is very delicate but important matter in my opinion, to find right
>> balance between existing standard properties and new ones being created
>> for more informativeness.
>> Please note that isInstanceOf in the Figure 2.1 of proposed document is
>> essentially the same as standard rdfs:subClassOf, except for the case
>>when
>> Instance is a single subject not defined as Class. That is BIBFRAME
>> Instance. However even in this case we could consider Instance
>>consisting
>> of copies and define it as Class as well. It leads us away from bf: and
>> oa:, of course, but uses standard properties that corresponds
>> to ³minimalist philosophy emerging from the Schema Bib Extend
>>initiative²,
>> as I see, and it makes sense for me and creates no dubbing. Besides,
>>such
>> approach allows to describe any hierarchies semantic ones, like FRBR,
>>as
>> OCLC proposes, or structural, like Serials see for example my
>> http://www.rusmarc.ru/soft/bibframe_model.pdf.
>> On the other hand if new properties (in bf: or oa:) are defined
>>correctly
>> with correct references to standard ones, one can use them if he wants,
>> for example, going to use custom applications in line with standard
>> browsers and crawlers. Last ones would work correctly with such
>>properties
>> as well.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Vladimir Skvortsov,
>> National Library of Russia
>> Saint-Petersburg
>>
>
>--
>Karen Coyle
>[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet
|