Print

Print


There was an idea in FRBR that elements of description could cascade down
the WEMI structure--things specific the Work (e.g., date of creation, form,
context, relationships to creators, relationships to Work-level subject
terms and classification) could be done once for the Work description and
linked to from descriptions of Expressions of that Work; things specific to
an Expression (e.g., relationships to translators, date of translation,
language, relationships to Expression-level subjects) could be done once
for the Expression description and linked to from descriptions of
Manifestations of that Expression, and so on. Does BIBFRAME have a way to
do this? or does collapsing the FRBR Work and Expression entities into the
BF Work mean that the FRBR Work-specific elements must be repeated (and
maintained) in each BF Work description (i.e., for each FRBR Expression)?


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The bf:Work does not contain the FRBR:Expression, it links to it. The
> FRBR:Expression is another BF:Work with a few extra properties like
> language that make it a FRBR:Expression.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 9:42 AM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe****
>
> ** **
>
> If a BIBFRAME Work can have an Expression, where is that Expression? To
> "have" it, the Expression needs to have a separate URI, which means that it
> has to be a "thing" -- it has to be its own circle in the diagram. But
> there is no Expression circle in the diagram.
>
> I had understood that the FRBR-type elements for Work and Expression were
> both to be entered into the BIBFRAME Work, and the examples seem to show
> that. I'm going to assume that "hasExpression" is not usable, but has not
> been removed from the documentation.
>
> kc****
>
> On 5/24/13 12:41 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote:****
>
> Laura,****
>
>
> As I understand it, a BIBFRAME Work can be both a FRBR Work and a FRBR
> Expression. The BIBFRAME vocab for Work<http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html>defines both
> expressionOf <http://bibframe.org/vocab/expressionOf.html> and
> hasExpression <http://bibframe.org/vocab/hasExpression.html> properties
> so one BIBFRAME Work could be an expression of another BIBFRAME Work.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
> ---****
>
>  ****
>
> Thomas Meehan****
>
> Head of Current Cataloguing****
>
> Library Services****
>
> University College London****
>
> Gower Street****
>
> London WC1E 6BT****
>
>  ****
>
> [log in to unmask]****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
> Of *Laura Krier
> *Sent:* 23 May 2013 23:50
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe****
>
>  ****
>
> Jorg, ****
>
> Your breakdown here is really helpful for me, but I have a question about
> your conception of how the library-controlled information is handled in
> BIBFRAME.****
>
>  ****
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Jörg Prante <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**
> **
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> - extract all library-controlled information out of the FRBR classes - the
> formal description, the classification, the subject cataloging, the call
> number, the shelf location, authority control information, (maybe also
> descriptions of the library service for access to printed and electronic
> resources, it's not clear right now) etc. Put that also into bf:Instance.*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> I don't know that I would consider this Instance information under the
> BIBFRAME definition of Instance. A lot of it (call number, shelf location,
> library service) seems more like item information, and might be a library
> annotation. It's related to a specific library's copy of an Instance. ****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> I'm also still a little baffled about BIBFRAME's use of Work. I can't
> figure out whether it's closer to FRBR's concept of Work (conceptual
> essence) or Expression. Personally, I think something closer to Expression
> would be more important for libraries' goals, and the line seems very
> blurred to me, here. Are we describing a particular expression of a
> conceptual essence, or the concept/idea itself? Or both? I  suppose I will
> have to anxiously await the release of the Creative Work discussion paper.
> (Though your suggestion to go back to the Primer was a very useful one.)**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Laura****
>
> -- ****
>
> Laura Krier****
>
> Metadata Analyst****
>
> California Digital Library****
>
>  ****
>
> 510-987-0832****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Karen Coyle****
>
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net****
>
> ph: 1-510-540-7596****
>
> m: 1-510-435-8234****
>
> skype: kcoylenet****
>
>


-- 
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