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:

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:02 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

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 actually have no answers at present and I am more curious if we could
whittle the multiple threads/issues/emails down to a set of distinct
issues tackled in turn. I've read all the emails several times and I'm
still trying to figure out how a bunch of questions about the intent of
properties associated with bf:Title resulted in threads about ISBD and
alphabetical ordering, which, yes, directed people to read a Unicode
document. I'm not saying these aren't issues that perhaps need to be
addressed, but let's entertain doing so in an orderly fashion. :)

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. Here
are examples of the two approaches:

--------
As a literal:

ex:1 rdf:type bf:Work
      bf:title "All the King's Men"
--------


--------
As a resource:

ex:1 rdf:type bf:Work
      bf:workTitle ex:2

ex:2 rdf:type bf:Title
      bf:titleValue "All the King's Men"
--------

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.

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.) 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, each with translations or
transliterations [2] and the need to capture the fact that a title was
added by a cataloger (and perhaps an implicit need to capture "who"
assigned that particular title). I'm sure there are more.

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." Since these properties are associated with a bf:Title
resource (and a bf:Title resource is distinct from a Work or Instance),
they raise vocabular/modelling questions. And, because they have
corollaries in MARC, they also evoke current MARC-cataloging practice.

Which brings me to another point: When we - as listserv participants -
say "Title" are we always talking about the same thing? Is it possible
some of us are using it interchangeably with "Work" while others
maintain that a Title is a Thing unto itself and that a Title is,
therefore, "related to" but distinct from a Work or Instance? If it is
the former, then we might better explore treating the titles of Works as
string literals. If it is the latter, then that would argue that titles
are better treated as distinct resources. But if we are multiple
individuals saying one thing and thinking another, then things get
confusing.

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?

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?

I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to the above
questions. I'm interested in gaining a better understanding where
everyone is coming from, which I hope will then be an indicator about
which way to take this thread. And I certainly do not see the above as
precluding one of the two possibilities as they currently exist, nor do
I find this approach to be a replacement for use cases. I'm just trying
to determine if there is an underlying point-of-view issue here.

[ For my answer: I see it as (1). I view titles as attributes or
properties of Works and Instances, not things unto themselves.]

Yours,
Kevin

[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=21183
[2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=22684




On 07/28/2014 01:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Rob, I'm not sure that the use cases document is up to date with the
> current state of BF. As I stated before, here is an actual title "entry"
> from a recently converted MARC->BF:
>
>
> bf:instanceTitle
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>
> bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
>
> a bf:Title .
>
> bf:title exists, as do bf:titleVariation, bf:titleType, and
> bf:titleStatement. I believe that these would change the SPARQL query.
> If you'd like, I can create a small test set.
>
> kc
>
> On 7/28/14, 10:26 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> (Was alleys, before that titles)
>>
>> From the use cases document:
>>
>> SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>> WHERE {
>> ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>> ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>> ...
>>
>>
>> I think this needs to be something like...
>>
>> SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>> WHERE {
>> { ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>> UNION
>> { ?work bf:titleStatement "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>> UNION
>> { ?work bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>> UNION
>> {
>> { ?work bf:workTitle ?title }
>> UNION
>> { ?work bf:titleVariation ?title }
>> ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>> UNION
>> {
>> { ?work bf:hasInstance ?inst }
>> UNION
>> { ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work}
>> UNION
>> { ?inst bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>> UNION
>> {
>> { ?inst bf:instanceTitle ?title }
>> UNION
>> { ?inst bf:titleVariation ?title }
>> ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth"
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> Yes? :(
>>
>> And this is a simple case without punctuation, sub-titles, etc.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:53 AM, [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:
>>
>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases
>>
>> only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my
>> count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second
>> question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

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