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, J�rg 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