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  August 2015

BIBFRAME August 2015

Subject:

Re: Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 9 Aug 2015 00:40:23 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 08.08.2015 um 19:33 schrieb Karen Coyle:
> On 8/7/15 7:38 PM, Steven Folsom wrote:
>> Sorry, just realized Series/Part relationship should be at the BF:Wor
k
>> level. The Work is the Part. Instances manifestations of those parts.
> 
> but transcribed information is about the Instance, not the work. So
> you've identified another distinction between transcription of series
> statements and linking. As long as we put information about the series
> in the Instance graph, we are not showing the true relationship betwee
n
> a monograph and its series. All attributes in the Instance graph shoul
d
> solely modify the Instance.

and cataloguers derive information from the instance to populate
the (FRBR) work and expression graphs (both starting at an entity of
class bf:Work)...

When we have resources with several series statement (or a more
complex series and subseries situation with maybe only one /statement/)
we should not give up the close connection between the transcribed
statement(s) (in the "instance graph", including parallel or alternative
titles if found on the resource) and the corresponding
links (in the "work graph", including machine-fiendly forms of the
numbering)

MARC data usually assumes that information coded into (different
subfields of) the same field is more closely tied to each other
than to information in different fields, and has the $8 mechanics
for cases where one field does not suffice. (IIRC for series this
fails and complementary information may be broken into 490 and 8XX
without making the connection explicit?)

For my understanding many RDA induced MARC changes tried to
disentangle those fields which might have mixed information from
different FRBR levels, thus an AACR2 solution for series information
might not be suitable for RDA from a design perspective.

Back to Bibframe: When our description is distributed into an "instance
graph" and a "work graph" (both being distinct named entities)
then there is one "natural" relation (from instance to its work)
but for series information (and probably a number of other cases
if we'd dare to look) it would be desirable to establish a connection
between a specific subgraph of the instance graph (a "series
statement") and one or more subgraphs in the work graph (the
series tracing(s)).

There are probably many technical options to achieve that and my
impression is that our attempts here in the past week all are in
the lines of keeping thigns "natural", i.e. if things belong
closely together put them into a graph of their own (a bf:serialPart?).

We probably should not expect the instance and work graphs to be
of maximal flatness, i.e.

A a bf:Work;
  any other work attributes.

B a bf:Instance;
  bf:instanceOf A;
  any other instance attributes.

but rather A and B swapping out common subgraphs like those for
series which mix work and instance attributes like in our series
examples:

<A> a bf:Work;
  ex:swappedOutSerialPartData _C;
  some other work attributes.

<B> a bf:Instance;
  bf:instanceOf <A>;
  ex:swappedOutSerialPartData _C;
  some other instance attributes.

_C a bf:serialPart;
   bf:series <Work1> ;
   rdfs:label “Series in English ; Vol. a-3”@en ;
   ex:instanceTitle “Series in English" ;
   ex:caption "Volume" ;
   ex:enumeration "A3" ;
   do ISSNs and other numbers which can directly be taken from the item
also belong here?
 .


Depending on the business rules (will A and B always be transmitted
together?) these swapped out subgraphs will need to be named (i.e.
have explicit identifiers of their own) and will have to carry
explicit links to the bf:Work and bf:Instances they are pertaining
to.

One might see this as a basic description of the standalone resource
(with work and instance graph) amended by the data necessesary
(on work and instance level) to establish the resource as a part
of a serial / series work.

This additional subgraph could be enriched with any other information
pertaining to the series, at least as long as this can be taken
from the (single) volume it belongs to. Thus for some cataloguing
contexts the actual link to the bf:series might be dispensable
(but for me it is always a bf:Work to bf:Work relation backed by
transcriptions from the instance thus even without the bf:series
statement this swapped out graph is not something which purely
resides in the "instance graph").

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlXGhVYACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OZCQQAokOkcQgN95C6HzC0j/8oBk6j
TN3bkZEhf51EfCME5lNpAIRS1kmSum1GUuNiExKpcT93VkDvGMW2fZEqetWlmDoG
RpYcsiJkljn/SasSZ2pgIRcoHo0qLbG4UD70bdcsOs6kM2y5mp4ZxA9PWzreKAlc
lFdjXfWQyuFizlyRS3I=
=XxiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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 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