The data actually derives from a MARC record. Not carrying forward the practice of truncation is a cataloging/policy decision; bibframe is agnostic on this point. If you do not like it, don't do it.
With respect to "providerPlace," the solution I proposed would, more or less, eliminate "providerPlace" and replace that with:
publishedAt
producedAt
distributedAt
manufacturedAt
Yours,
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:01 PM
> To: Ford, Kevin
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
>
>
> Kevin posted as an example:
>
> > bf:providerPlace [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ]
>
> Is that London England or London Ontario? Since RDA now allows provision
> of jurisdiction if lacking, could we please not carry the
> AACR2 practice of truncated places of publication, manufacture, or
> distribution into Bibframe? (At least we no longer omit place for
> producer.)
>
> bf:Place should be defined as including jurisdiction.
>
> Why "providerPlace" rather than Producer, Publisher, Distributor, or
> Manufacturer? It would help to have more consistent terminology amongst
> our standards. Might not some consider "Provider" to mean the book jobber?
> English terms are often ambiguous.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__
> \__________________________________________________________
|