Comments in-line.

Yours,
Kevin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
> 
> 
> On 7/31/14, 3:03 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> bf:publishedBy / bf:publishedAt / bf:publishedOn have no relationship
> between each other and that will become fatal, for example, if there is more
> than one publication in the lifecycle of the instance (e.g. reprints).
> 
> The relationship is that all three have the same subject, ex:instance1 (for
> example):
> 
> ex:instance1 bf:publishedBy _:xx .
> _xx a bf:Organization .
> _xx bf:label "Hamlyn" .
> ex:instance1 bf:publishedAt _:yy .
> _yy a bf:Place .
> _yy bf:label "London" .
> 
> etc.
> 
> A new publication (e.g. a reprint) I believe becomes a new instance, so there
> would be only one publication event per instance. 

Correct.

> (Catalogers?? true? even
> for serials?!)
> 
> Of course, these have the "blank-node-+-label" problem again (still?).

_:xx and _:yy do not need to be blank nodes.  We've been using a lot of blank nodes in examples, but they do not need to be.

> 
> kc
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet