-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
>> 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
> a monograph and its series. All attributes in the Instance graph shoul
> 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
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
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
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;
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
<A> a bf:Work;
some other work attributes.
<B> a bf:Instance;
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
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").
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----