Osma,

I informally polled the PCC URIs in MARC Task Group, and those that responded agreed:

- With the presence of a $t, the $0 should refer to a Work. (The converter is working as expected.*)
o This would go for 700 $a$t and other fields as well.
- There should not be a URI for the Author in that field as the author alone does not represent the entire subject of the work as defined by the cataloger.  [The Task Group would like to promote a practice of not including $0 URIs that represent different objects from the (albeit implicit) objects of the “triple” in MARC. There’s a subgroup working on making clearer when certain subfields trigger different types of resources.]
o Just to be clear, if the text was about the Author (without a $t), a $0 for the Author would be advisable.
o If there are not URIs for the Work, there should not be $0 in the field. That shouldn’t stop the converter from creating one, but I think we can all agree stable/canonical Work URIs would be great. (

- *With respect to converters, perhaps when there is a URI in the $0, the converter should not assert a type on the resource. Rather, the RDF generated from the converter could just link to the resource, and not try to further describe it. In theory, the RDF description of the resource will include its own type assertions. 
o This assumes (as a colleague put it) the resource description isn’t too skimpy.
o I’m not sure if this is true, but would this complicate your work to use the BF converter output as an intermediary to create schema.org data? For things that already have URIs, are you creating schema assertions about them that require knowing, for example, that something from the converter is a bf:Work?

I hope this response was helpful,
Steven

On 11/27/17, 6:11 AM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of Osma Suominen" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

    Hi!
    
    I have a MARC record that references a work-as-subject in a 600 field 
    like this:
    
         <marc:datafield tag="600" ind1="1" ind2="4">
           <marc:subfield code="a">Agricola, Mikael,</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="d">noin 1510-1557.</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="t">Abckiria.</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="0">(FIN11)000103346</marc:subfield>
         </marc:datafield>
    
    The $0 subfield was added recently when we enhanced our bibliographic 
    records with authority record identifiers. In this case it represents 
    the authority record ID of the author (Mikael Agricola) of the work 
    (Abckiria) that is the subject of the work the record represents.
    
    However, when I run this through marc2bibframe2 it interprets the 
    identifier as identifying the work (Abckiria), not the author.
    
    Now I'm not sure which interpretation is correct. When you have a 600 
    work subject (with subfield $t) that has a $0 identifier, is it 
    identifying the work or the author? Is it possible to specify this 
    somehow using the $0 subfield?
    
    We don't have identifiers for works, but we do have them for authors, at 
    least for many of them. So we have an identifier for Mikael Agricola, 
    but not for his work Abckiria. I'm trying to figure out where to place 
    that identifier for 600 work subjects so that they could get properly 
    converted to BIBFRAME and the BIBFRAME data would include that 
    identifier so it can be used further down the line.
    
    -Osma
    
    
    
    -- 
    Osma Suominen
    D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
    National Library of Finland
    P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
    00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
    Tel. +358 50 3199529
    [log in to unmask]
    http://www.nationallibrary.fi