On 5/14/15 9:21 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> I don’t see a problem with allowing string properties when there is no
> question of there being a resource - but that’s a decision BIBFRAME
> should make, not the implementors. The problem I have is with letting
> the implementor/data dictate whether you have a string or a resource
> (or a date etc.) in any particular instance.
Unfortunately, Owen, as I said in an earlier email, it's not always
clear whether there is a resource in play. I think we can create a line
with creators on one side and textual notes on the other, but title is
an interesting case that straddles that line. Quoting myself (since my
email was routed around and not included in this reply):
> So much of our data has been playing multiple roles of access,
> display, and identifier that it's easy to forget that something as
> seemingly simple as a title is actually playing all of those roles at
> once. It's a label for display, an important part of the identity of
> the bibliographic item, a textual transcription of the title page, an
> alphabetical access point, a collocation mechanism, etc etc etc, all
> rolled up into one. Do we need to tease some of this apart based on
The key question is: What is the entity for which the transcribed title
is a representative label? Only itself. What is the entity for which a
textual note is a representative label? The same.
Transcribed title (MARC 245) is, by definition, a copy of a string of
text as found on the title page. If it is treated as a resource it is
because you might want to say something about it -- but then that is
also the case for any other literal in your data. Which supports Rob's
solution, I believe.
Are there some titles (key titles, supplied titles, work titles, etc.)
that are more clearly resources? (Some of them are taken from controlled
lists.) Are all titles as "resource-y" as all members of a SKOS
vocabulary? (Me: don't think so.) This is a very complex question.
Turning titles (MARC 245) and other areas of bibliographic description
into resources is not a slam-dunk, IMO. If we go with Rob's "all objects
are resources" are we saying that a title is semantically as much of a
resource as a creator? Will our data reflect the difference between a
string as resource and a rwo as resource? Does that matter?
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net