LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: bf:Title queries from use cases

From:

Kevin Ford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:17:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (226 lines)

Comments inline.

Yours,
Kevin

On 07/28/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Kevin Ford <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I believe Rob is trying to underscore the fact that there are
> variable ways to record a Work's title (not to mention an
> Instance's) and, because there are variable ways to do it, the query
> becomes, well, ridiculous.
>
>
> I didn't say ridiculous, but I did think it many times, and am glad that
> you did :)
>
>
> So, I believe Rob kicked off a thread that basically asked why are
> there two methods to capturing title information.[1] One way is to
> use a literal string and the other is to reference a bf:Title
> resource. [... examples ...]
>
> The variability probably reflects a few things: trying to have it
> both ways so that implementers have the option; a misunderstanding
> or miscommunication about how multiple groups and individuals think
> about "titles;" a desire to accommodate old and new cataloging
> rules; and a level of parity with current cataloging practice.
>
>
> The first is the dangerous one, and particularly so in a graph. In my
> opinion, the model should pick one. Whichever is the simplest case that
> covers the use cases. If that's string literals, fantastic. If not, I
> could live with blank nodes... just not both at once.

I hear you. I worry about two things: 1) the prevalence of anonymous,
largely not-reusable resources in general, and the impact that could
have at scale, and 2) designing for uncommon cases.

About 2: They're not "corner cases" but I wonder if the vast majority of
titles (and by "vast" I mean certainly greater than 90% of them)
associated with Works require the use of a relationship /and/ a resource
to capture the title. Said another way, would we end up with more than
90% of our Works looking like this

ex:1 a bf:Work
      bf:title _:x

_;x a bf:Title
     bf:value "The Scarlett Letter"

versus

ex:1 a bf:Work
      bf:title "The Scarlett Letter"

?

I offer the above simply for comment - don't misunderstand, I get the
problem with there being two ways to do something. I'm just wondering
if there is a way to have our cake and eat it too.

>
> Personally, I am in favor of investigating treating titles as string
> literals. (And I mean all titles: constructed titles, regular
> old-fashioned-this-is-the-__title titles, abbreviated titles, spine
> titles, key titles, added title page titles, etc.)
>
>
> _:Work bf:(constructed|abbreviated|spine|key|added|etc)Title "literal" .
> or:
>
> _:Work bf:title [ a
> bf:(Constructed|Abbreviated|Spine|Key|Added|Etc)Title ; bf:value
> "literal" ] .
>
> I prefer to multiply classes rather than predicates but the first way is
> much more straight forward if the only property of the Title resource is
> its value.
>
> However, that's a lot easier to say than it is to robustly test and
> robust testing is needed because titles clearly unearth a number of
> little-considered but real issues, such as a Work with multiple titles,
>
>
> _:Work bf:title "literal 1" ;
> bf:title "literal 2" .
>
> each with translations or transliterations [2]
>
>
> This becomes trickier, obviously.
>
> It seems like you would need to have a resource to express
> translation/transliteration relationships between.
>
> _:Work bf:title _:title1 .
>
> _:title1 a bf:AddedTitle ;
> bf:value "literal" ;
> bf:language lingvo:en ;
> bf:hasTranslation _:title2 .
>
> _:title2 a bf:TranslatedTitle ;
> bf:value "littéral" ;
> bf:language lingvo:fr .
>
>
> and the need to capture the fact that a title was added by a cataloger
>
>
> If this sort of provenance is needed at the title entry level, either
> the assignment is reified (see also Simeon's examples in the Identifier
> thread, and also bf:Annotation) or there would have to be a resource
> with an assigner predicate.

Roy Tennant's marcusage app is not working presently, but I wanted to
know exactly how often something like MARC BIB 242 (translation of title
by cataloging agency) is actually used for titles. I've started to
wonder if reification in these types of circumstances might not be the
better way to sequester the complicated things, to be used only when
needed (which is to say, rarely, at least in the grand scheme of things).




I mean titleAssigner to follow current
> conventions ;) [please please just assigner!]
>
> _:title2 a bf:TranslatedTitle ;
> bf:value "littéral" ;
> bf:language lingvo:fr ;
> bf:translatedBy <http://translate.google.com/> .
>
> And bf:translatedBy should probably be rel:trl
>
> While the bf:Title construct exists as an attempt to address /some/
> of those less common cases (such as a cataloger assigned titles), it
> remains problematic because it is hard to square that particular use
> case with existence of "bf:formDesignation" or "bf:titleAttribute,"
> the definitions of which strongly suggest they are aspects of the
> Work, not a "title."
>
>
> +1. These should be taken off of title and pushed up to the Work.
>
> Which brings me to another point: When we - as listserv
> participants - say "Title" are we always talking about the same thing?
>
>
> To be clear, I mean the name of the Work. Or its label. Its dc:title.
>
> So, I think these last questions are the first ones we need to find
> agreement on.
>
> 1) Is a title an attribute or property of a Work or Instance? Do
> you think of a "title" as synonymous with a Work (or Instance), that
> is, the thing you are describing?
>
>
> A property (or relationship if the title needs to be Thingified)
>
> OR
> 2) Is a title a type of Thing unto itself, one that can have its own
> identifier, and is related to but otherwise distinct from the Work
> or Instance you are describing? It is something that is associated
> with a Work but is not necessarily a property or attribute of the
> Work? Though this is not only way to look at this, one wants to
> ask: Are titles re-usable?
>
>
> It might be a thing unto itself, if it is important to capture
> information regarding its provenance or other features.
>
> For example, if it was important to capture that Rob Sanderson
> translated the title, then there was a TranslationActivity that occured
> at a certain point in time performed by Rob with the English title as
> input and the French title as Output.
>
> Overkill? I think so... but that's the implication of the translated
> title use case where there's more information to be associated with the
> title separately from the Work/Instance.

I agree about it being overkill, and I'm now wondering how realistic,
and common, some of these use cases are. I'm not against uncommon use
cases, but in re-reading all of this just now I started feeling like the
agenda was being set by uncommon use cases. In reviewing the above, and
looking at the BF Vocabulary, I'm not clear about the intent of
titleSource.

"titleSource" - I think - has an association with MARC 210 $2, which
references this MARC source code list:

http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/abbreviated-title.html

Suddenly, those seem like candidates to become properties to be
published at ID.LOC.GOV, perhaps, and employed in the place of
titleSource.

There's a number of simplifications I think and I'm looking to tease
those out.


Yours,
Kevin





>
> And yes, titles should be reusable if they're resources.
>
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager