Print

Print


Barbara Tillett noted back in 2003 that in FRBR, the "work" and
"expression" entities may collapse into an "abstraction" and I think
Bibframe is doing this.

Quote: "Using this model, one could even collapse both 'work' and
'expression' into something called an 'abstraction' when that was found to
be useful for a particular application. It should be noted however, that
FRBR kept them separate." http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/frbreng.pdf (p. 9)

My conclusion is, it will be up to the Bibframe implementor to add more
concrete entities that can distinguish a bf:Work for better
contextualization. Maybe by using FRBR entities, maybe by other. It's for
sure a set of bf:Work must be post-processed for many aspects, not only for
search by author/title clustering, but also by building groups for text,
sound, image, language etc. like we know from FRBR.

Another consequence is that Bibframe packagers will have to be a little
cautious because there will be many properties for creating and linking
bf:Work classes, since they will subsume the FRBR expression level. Some
may package all properties in one bf:Work, while others may create multiple
bf:Work's and link them.

Jörg


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I don't see any complication. The thing being checked out is never the
> Instance anyway; it's the copy or holding, mixed in with some algorithms
> about who can check out and how. The system will have to do some work
> getting from your title to the actual copy; it'll have to do similar work
> in the new environment.
>
> We have no bf:Expression in the sense of a different data structure; but
> we will have bf:Work with properties that make it useable as a
> FRBR:Expression, such as the language. It will be a related work with a
> property such as "hasTranslation" linking the two. A request for Mark
> Twain's Huckleberry Finn in Finnish would probably miss the Huck Finn in
> English because the language would only be on the bf:Work "Huck Finn.
> Finnish." [made up]
>
> I'm working on a couple of examples of translations we can show, from our
> catalog.
>
> Nate
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> -------------------------------------------
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> Library of Congress
> 202-707-2193
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe
>
> Laura said:
>
> >... a user can still request a resource at the Expression level ...
>
> How may one request at the Expression level, since Bibframe has no
> Expression level records*?  Some Work level records are actually
> Expressions I understand, e.g., a translation?   But wouldn't ILL or
> hold requests with Bibframe have to be made using the Work or Instance
> record?
>
> I agree that Instance records based on binding is not only a major
> departure from long standing practice, but a complication for holds and ILL
> requests.
>
> *I'm continuing t use "record" util there is an agreed upon alternative.
>
>
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>