On 16 May 2013, at 12:16, "Meehan, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Given that a) BIBFRAME cannot possibly control all relationship designations and b) BIBFRAME needs to handle both URIs and textual relationships, I cannot see how this can possibly be kept simple- although I dearly hope it can be- without being willing to lose some data. The current BIBFRAME approach of putting the relationship in the Authority can't work but I wonder, reluctantly, whether a BIBFRAME Relationship entity (or a fancy blank node) standing between the Work and Authority is the only way to do it 

I think you are right. Also worth looking at the recently published "Scholarly Contributions and Roles Ontology" ( SCoRO) at and also the related "Publishing Roles Ontoloty" (PRO) at 

These ontologies share some of the concerns of BIBFRAME but in a specialist arena (scholarly articles) - but they show that having an additional layer to express roles in the creative process is not without precedent.

> Because :creator, :composer and the agent involved are all objects of the triples, they could easily be literals or URIs (and even those URIs can't possibly always be BIBFRAME ones).

I don't understand the last part of this statement - what would it mean for the URIs to be 'BIBFRAME' ones in this case? I think we could expect a set of data to be self-sufficient (i.e. to coin URIs where required and not rely on external entities if the desire is to avoid this)

> I expect the last thing BIBFRAME wants to do is add another first class entity to the model and querying the above would be considerably less fun, but given the willingness to apply complexity to Annotations and the importance of relationships but their wide variance in past and anticipated practice (again, RDA app. I), is this a silly idea? I did wonder at one point whether this additional layer was what BIBFRAME Authorities was aiming at anyway.

I think this is a good idea. If we want to express creator/contributor relationships in a sophisticated way we have to expect some complexity, but I don't think this approach is really that bad in terms of complexity - and of course it is worth repeating that if one was actually cataloguing an item, the user interface should be simple, or at least easy to use, not matter how sophisticated the underlying data model.

I know what you mean about wondering if this additional layer was what BIBFRAME Authorities were aiming at - but my conclusion is that they are there for a different purpose ... working on an email on this now :)