On 9/18/14, 2:06 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Is it as simple as Work bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Work and Instance
> bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Instance ?
> And then associate the absorbed/continued/superceded and language
> relationships with the Work-that-is-the-Part?

It could be, but we may be getting into a rather complex area in terms
of relationships and the bibliographic world. A given library is a
subset of some larger bibliographic world of which it does not have
perfect knowledge. Let's take my local public library that has a few
copies of War and Peace, none of which are in Russian. The library also
does not have either catalogers nor patrons who would be able to read
the bibliographic information in the original Russian language. Although
the English-language translation *should* indicate that it is a
translation of the original, linking to the original 1) may not be
helpful to the library's users 2) is probably not a good use of the
cataloger's time. So a note that says "Translated from the Russian"
could be more helpful, and is undoubtedly easier on the cataloger, than
the creation of a relationship to a separate resource (that, btw, the
library does not hold).

The work done around bibliographic relationships, from Tillett's
dissertation through FRBR, RDA, and now BIBFRAME, does not distinguish
between the whole bibliographic universe and the needs of the local
library collection. (I also believe that much of this work was done with
only large libraries in mind.) It may not make sense for a library to
have resources in its catalog that it does not hold, but that have
bibliographic relationships with ones in its collection. Until we have a
way that each individual catalog can move users easily from its
collection to the larger (and perhaps theoretical rather than
inventory-based) bibliographic world, this conflict remains.

kc

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600