Frankly, we've not really addressed this (though we're aware of the idea of inheritance in this sense). It’s not the we won't, it's more to do with seeing where the data goes and what is practical.
The nice thing - as I see it - about BIBFRAME Works that double as RDA/FRBR Expressions is that, when the information is repeated, the BIBFRAME Work can stand alone without reference to another BIBFRAME Work (what would be the RDA/FRBR Expression). Mind you - it's not that there is no link to a BIBFRAME Work that is representative of an RDA/FRBR Work (there is), it's just that you do not also need that other BIBFRAME Work to make sense of the one that is representative of the RDA/FRBR Expression.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe
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
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.
On 5/24/13 12:41 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote:
As I understand it, a BIBFRAME Work can be both a FRBR Work and a FRBR Expression. The BIBFRAME vocab for Work defines both expressionOf and hasExpression properties so one BIBFRAME Work could be an expression of another BIBFRAME Work.
Head of Current Cataloguing
University College London
London WC1E 6BT
t.m[log in to unmask]
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.
- 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.)
California Digital Library
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries