RDA and BIBFRAME have definitely taken different approaches to this
problem. It would be interesting to know whether the final functionality
of the two approaches is similar. For example, RDA has:
while BIBFRAME has:
Statements would look like:
<A> <rdae:choreographicAdaptationOfExpression> <B>
<X> <bf:derivativeOf> <Y>
These could actually have the same semantics if X has the quality of
being a choreographic adaptation (or a choreography, I suppose) and Y is
an expression. That statement's semantics would then be: "this
choreographical thing(X) is a derivative of the following expression(Y)."
It seems to me that RDA has some redundancy by adding "OfWork"
"OfExpression" to each of the properties, and I am guessing that is
because the entities WEMI are defined as disjoint and therefore you
cannot have a relationship that has an open range ("derivativeOf" with
range being any group 1 entity). BIBFRAME opts for fewer distinct
properties, and probably less control built into the vocabulary, but the
same semantics may be inferred from the triple rather than being encoded
in the property.
These are philosophical differences, in a sense, but checking to see if
the same concepts can be expressed in both languages would be an
interesting test. The other test would be to see if catalogers working
in the two environments find one easier to work with. It could be that
user interfaces could alleviate some of the difference between them.
On 10/17/17 10:31 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
> One area where we can compare the relative expressiveness of RDA and
> BIBFRAME is the properties for describing relationships between
> resources, that is, between works, expressions, manifestations and items
> in terms of RDA and between works, instances and items in BIBFRAME. In
> RDA, these relationships are given in Appendix J (relationship
> designators). In BIBFRAME, they are listed in the category view in the
> two sections labelled Cataloging Resource Relationships – Specific and
> Cataloging Resource Relationships – Detailed.
> I have created mappings of resource relationships from constrained RDA
> to BIBFRAME for each of the four resource types in RDA. They can be
> found on the University of Washington linked data page:
> The first observation is that RDA provides a much more finely grained
> description of resource relationships. For example, for Works there are
> over 150 properties in RDA and 32 in BIBFRAME. For some types of
> relationships, e.g. referential relationships and whole-part
> relationships, the RDA-BIBFRAME mapping is one-to-one. For sequential
> relationships, the correspondence is close, with 22 relationships in RDA
> and 14 in BIBFRAME. (It was closer in BF1, but BF2 lost most of the “in
> part” relationships.)
> For derivative relationships and accompanying relationships, however,
> there is a great discrepancy between the expressiveness of RDA and
> BIBFRAME. There are over 70 derivative work relationships in RDA but
> only two in BIBFRAME. For accompanying relationships, RDA has over 50
> and BIBFRAME has 8.
> The result is that much detail is lost when RDA concepts are expressed
> in BIBFRAME. RDA differentiates “abridgement of” from “graphic
> novelization of” from “verse adaptation of” from “digest of” from
> “parody of”. In BIBFRAME, we have a single choice for expressing all of
> these relationships: derivativeOf. RDA allows distinctions between
> addenda, appendices, concordances and errata but in BIBFRAME they must
> be rendered identically as accompaniedBy.
> My second observation is that BIBFRAME’s treatment of resource
> relationships does not support the user experience we hope to provide
> under RDA. The elaboration of resource relationships is one of the
> significant advances that RDA has made over AACR2. When catalogers
> invest intellectual effort to determine resource relationships, this
> information should be displayed to users in our library catalogs.
> BIBFRAME-encoded cataloging does not fully allow us to do so.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net