Many libraries, most importantly LC, are only transcribing series statements from resources and not tracing them (i.e. not providing a controlled authorized form as a related series work/expression access point). Is BIBFRAME going to require those libraries to reverse course because they must link to a series every time? Will that force them to have to establish an identifier for each and every series, and possibly a preferred name/authorized access point for said series?
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
[log in to unmask]
(206) 685-8782 fax
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 12:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
On 8/6/15 8:59 AM, Steven Folsom wrote:
> +1 to everyone who has proposed separating Series from Series Statements. As Karen Pointed out, Series can have any number of rdfs:Labels to account for many of our use cases for collection labels for individual Series. Series statements seem to be more about provisioning for transcription and labels describing the sequence of membership to a Series.
> With that, I think there are parallels between what has been said about “series statements” and what I proposed a little while back for handling transcription of titles and title parts. I may be wrong, but... couldn’t an instance have a SeriesTitle (a not yet defined bf:Title subclass), that allows for recording both the transcribed series title/statement in an rdfs:label and title parts through MainTitles, Subtitles, PartNumbers? Using logic from title proposal I submitted on July 23rd, and the creation of a bf:SeriesTitle subclass of bf:Title, one seemingly could handle both Titles for the Series entity and transcribed Series Titles on the bf:Instance.
> For example (sneaking a bunch of ideas from the July 23rd proposal):
> <bf:Work1> a <bf:Series> ;
> rdfs:label “Title in English”@en ;
> rdfs:label “Title in French”@fr ;
> bf:hasPreferredTitle <bf:Title1>.
> <bf:Work2> a <bf:Monograph> ;
> bf:series <bf:Work1> ;
> bf:title <bf:Title2> ;
> bf:instance <bf:Instance1> .
"series" is a bibliographic relationship between two bibliographic resources. So work2 has what is probably a "part of" relationship with work1. work2 also has a title, but that (to me) is not a source-to-source relationship but the title is a descriptive element on work2. I think these are conceptually very different. The title node will be unique to that instance; the series node may have relationships with many instances. Because it has a single context (one instance), the title node can be a blank node. Because a series node is intended to be related to more than one instance, it cannot be a blank node. For this reason, having an emphasis on the series title doesn't facilitate linking. Linking needs to be to a universally identified and reusable graph.
> <bf:Instance1> a <bf:Print> ;
> bf:title <bf:Title3> ;
> bf:title <bf:SeriesTitle1>.
> <bf:SeriesTitle1> rdfs:label “Series Main Title: Clever Subtitle, Volume 1” ;
> bf:hasPart <madsrdf:MainTitleElement1> ;
> bf:hasPart <madsrdf:SubTitleElement1> ;
> bf:hasPart <madsrdf:PartNameElement1> ;
> bf:descriptionSource <bf:Instance1>.
Assuming that this is a transcribed title, where/when is the title of the series resource used? In other words, why have the series title in two places? (If the transcribed title is different, I would consider that an alternate title with the meaning: "title as it appears on the
piece.") And how would the individual volumes link to the series resource?
Another possibility is to have an identifier for the individual series "part" -- often designated as "volume." A series would have parts:
<ex:seriesActaFoo> a <bf:Series> ;
<ex:hasPart> <ex:33333> ;
<ex:hasPart> <ex:44444> .
<ex:33333> a <ex:serialPart> ;
<ex:caption> "Volume" ;
<ex:enumeration> "A3" .
<bf:instance7> a <bf:Instance> ;
<ex:isSeriesPart> <ex:33333> .
It looks less intuitive, but it makes all of the connections. This pattern could be expanded as the serial pattern, with each issue, volume, part (and whatever) being identified and linked to each other.
It seems awkward, but in essence that's what the MARC holdings format does with the serial pattern.
Note that "volume 3" of serialA will have a unique identifier that only identifies volume 3 of serialA, not all "volume 3"s of all serials. The URI will identifier the resource, not the caption.
> <madsrdf:MainTitleElement1> rdfs:label “Series Main Title”
> bf:precedes <madsrdf:SubTitleElement1>.
> <madsrdf:SubTitleElement1> rdfs:label “Clever Subtitle” ;
> bf:precedes <madsrdf:PartNameElement1> .
> <madsrdf:PartNameElement1> rdfs:label “Volume 1” .
> Thank you for your consideration,
> Steven Folsom
> Metadata Strategist and Standards Advocate Cornell University Library
> On 8/6/15, 4:32 AM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of Thomas Berger" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Sorry for the late reply,
>> Am 03.08.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Karen Coyle:
>>> On 8/3/15 2:46 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
>>>> We'll probably have to do both in even more situations than before
>>>> (links becoming more important while the text form still being
>>>> indispensable as proof of evidence for many applications),
>>>> since the two ways of expressing the fact are complimentary
>>>> and by no means full substitutes of each other. Thus it will be
>>>> crucial to never lose the connection between the two for a given
>>>> instance, i.e. having seemingly independent series "statements"
>>>> and series "links".
>>> Why? Every "thing" in RDF can have display forms -- what is the series
>>> statement but a display form of the series information? We should assu
>>> that everything that has an identifier also has a display for humans.
>> subsequent posts by Stephen and Mac brought up the multilanguage
>> issues I originally didn't have in mind.
>> We already had seen that a "series statement" is of compound nature,
>> since it indicates the series (a different entity from the one
>> carrying the statement) and also the "numbering within series"
>> which best may be seen as some qualifying information pertaining
>> to the relation itself.
>> Within an RDF context there are technical obstacles coping with
>> that - i.e. turning "part of a text" into a "hyperlink" or
>> accompanying textual data into collation-friendly numbers or
>> sortable strings: Whenever there is a numbered subseries within
>> a numbered series and/or parallel numberings the series
>> statement is quite hermetic and spreading it out to something
>> machine processable is not straightforward at all. (Thus
>> perhaps one "series statement" (transcribed as stated on the
>> resource) may give rise to one or more complex "series link"
>> RDF statements (as in stated by the cataloguing process)
>> at leaet indicating the target resource (the "link") and that
>> part of the numbering which pertains to the series in question.
>> Series being "analytic" or that kind of "aggregates" which
>> evolve over time are a problem, too:
>> * A series as a work is the result of the activity of editors
>> and publishers (our concepts of "work" are broad enough
>> to extend well beyond artistic or intellectual production
>> to all areas of organized human effords)
>> * The examples of multilanguage series (and - as by now almost
>> always - the parallel existence of "online" and "print")
>> indicate that FRBR expressions of series probably make sense
>> as a concept
>> * Actual possession of items may be a faint reflection of the
>> "series" concept on item level, this is probably completely
>> irrelevant for bibliographic descriptions, however in
>> museums and archives "collections" (of objects) are a central
>> concept and "series" in the sense that a certain subset of
>> the objects in a given (sub-)collection can be spread out
>> (e.g. shelved) in a linear manner are a technique to achieve
>> global order from local ordering
>> However for FRBR manifestaions or BF instances it is not at all
>> clear what a series might be so it's probably wise to avoid
>> instances of series and always link to series expressions (FRBR)
>> or works (BF). Now for a given item we have the transcribed
>> series statement, which like everything transcribed is a
>> property within the domain of BF instances / FRBR manifestations.
>> And we have the actual series link (qualified by the numbering
>> specific to the specific "series item") which probably "lifts up"
>> to at least a expression-expression link ("part-of").
>> So what one could need:
>> Some RDF container(?) element of BF instance domain, which
>> can carry the transcribed series statement *and* any number
>> of "qualified" BF-work to BF-work links which ~should be
>> understood~ as pertaining to the BF work implied by the
>> given instance. This sounds rather messy but IMHO exactly is
>> the value cataloguers usually add: Taking evidence from an
>> item and abstracting it to instances/manifestations and
>> even higher levels (BTW: providing a link to an entity for
>> an author of a given resource and recording the form of her/his
>> name used on the item also means closely glueing together
>> data with domain BF-work and BF-instance: Do we really
>> understand yet what is going on there?).
>> Alternatively one could have any number of "series links" with
>> domain BF-work and "source them" with transcribed data. This
>> could be "moved" then to the BF work graph (quotes because it
>> not already sitting there is rather a misconception of us) Here
>> I'm not sure how to express what is taken from what instance
>> and how often it really is imprinted there...
>> viele Gruesse
>> Thomas Berger
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net