I apologize if this is an issue that has already been covered, but I just want to get some clarity.

In BIBFRAME, a work might be approximately the equivalent of a FRBR expression? An instance might be approximately equivalent to a FRBR manifestation? And items would be expressed in annotations?


Laura Krier
Metadata Analyst
California Digital Library


On May 22, 2013, at 6:56 PM, "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

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." (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.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://<>
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________