I'm not sure how the <label> element in the BIBFRAME authority examples relates to the linked authorities. Traditional authorities can differ in their choice of preferred authorized access point. Does the BF authority's <label> element reflect one of those authorized forms (which one? how indicated?), or something else--a transcribed form, or maybe a locally preferred but not necessarily authorized variant? Like Karen, I'm not clear how the rest of the data in the traditional authority (variant terms, related terms, recorded characteristics) gets into the access/display mix.

If <label> in the case above is derived from an authority (as in example 3?), and if a BF authority can also be used to link between a transcribed form and authorities for the same entity as in example 4, that would require two different kinds of functionality, since the <label> could then not be derived or changed based on an authorized form. So we'd need at least two differentiated kinds of BF authority. How would this difference be coded? Is there a reason not to let the transcribed form be content for the BibFrame Instance's <publisher> element, and just use the BF authority to reference the traditional authorities?

Example 3 apparently indicates that each defined <relationToWork> would warrant a new BF authority for the same entity. Would BF authorities be referenced from multiple works where the <relationToWork> is the same, or does each Work or Instance reference a different BF Authority? If a person has two relationships to a Work, does that require two BF authorities, or can a single BF authority reflect, say, a relationship as both editor and translator?

<hasIDLink> surely refers to an id.loc.gov link, as <hasVIAFLink> refers to a VIAF link. But what is the value of specifying the different sources in both the element name and the URI the element contains? Why not just <hasLink>? or <hasLink type=VIAF resource=http://viaf.../>?


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:25 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Karen said:

>The main gist is exploring options for the positioning of the BIBFRAME
>authority thing in relation to the traditional library authority "record."

It seems to me we have three kinds of authorities in our authority
files: those for names, those for uniform titles or name/titles
(i.e.works), and those for topics.

Is it too far from Bibframe reality to think of authorities for names
and topics as candidates for Bibframe authorities, and those for works
to be candidates for work records (or whatever it is decided to call
that work data to which Instances are linked)?

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428