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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  September 2014

BIBFRAME September 2014

Subject:

Re: bf:Language and Parts

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:44:23 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Comments inline.

Yours,
Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 4:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] bf:Language and Parts
> 
> 
> It seems that bf:Language has been living two lives.  In one life, it is a hard
> working predicate that relates a resource with the global identity of a
> language, such as http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/languages/eng.
> 
> The other life is lived outside of the RDF model, where it is specific to a
> particular resource and not in any way reusable.  The definition of the part of
> the resource is a string, not a URI, but clearly is meant as one as it is re-used.
> It also has another URI and a scheme [sorry, source] and a name [sorry,
> languageOfPart].
> 
> One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.  I'm going to be as
> forthcoming as I can: in order to make this coherent, along with
> bf:(absorbed/continued/superseded)InPart[By], a Part of a Resource should
> have its own identity in the same way that an Edition does. It could be just a
> blank node, like so many others, but at least be a node with the potential for
> identity.

-- I agree 116.3%.

> 
> My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with this, 

-- I don’t think they should.

The long and short is this:  How this has been handled in MARC is less than ideal and I agree the current model does not improve on this.

If /part/ of a (larger) resource is in a different language, then it stands to reason that that /part/ should be represented as its own Resource, with its own language and which then has a defined relationship to the (larger) resource.  

Yes, it may be a pretty meagre Resource initially, but that doesn't make it any less a resource /and/ we have at least established something (a Resource) about which more can be said, without precluding the possibility of re-use.

There may be exceptions discovered along the way that require some kind of special accommodation, but libretti or inserts or other accompanying materials can be Resources unto themselves.

Yours,
Kevin


> but I believe that
> you want to do the right thing.  We're willing to wipe this part of the ontology
> clean ... all we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known
> issue to resolution.
> 
> Agent Sanderson
> --
> 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

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