Print

Print


[The following uses the "BIBFRAME Authority" name, but we really do need a
better term for these. Maybe "inclusive links" or "capture/cache
connectors" would work, to convey the idea that the BIBFRAME authority is a
linking structure that can capture information from an external source and
include it, manually or algorithmically, in the indexable, displayable
description of a BIBFRAME Work or Instance. Anyway, that's how I'm
understanding BIBFRAME Authorities now.]

If BIBFRAME Authorities are able to carry the weight of added access and
description for a given BIBFRAME Work or Instance, that opens up an
interesting set of possibilities. Traditional authorities will be sources
of alternate names and presumably other information which can be captured
and cached on the BF Authority for local context indexing and display in
relation to one or many BIBFRAME Works and Instances.

Will it be possible to use a BIBFRAME authority to link a BIBFRAME Work
describing a FRBR Work to a BIBFRAME Work description of a FRBR Expression?
Something similar could be done if traditional uniform title authorities
were remodeled to include the full range of FRBR Work attributes and
components, but that would be up to other agents, not BIBFRAME. Personally,
I'd be happy to see BIBFRAME include a model for a generalized set of
elements and relationships true for the FRBR Work as a type of BIBFRAME
Work. The goal would be to capture and cache those bits of access and
description specific to the FRBR Work and include them as data for all the
BIBFRAME Works describing Expressions of the FRBR Work through the use of
BIBFRAME Authorities. This should be a close parallel to using BIBFRAME
Authorities to capture and cache for local use bits of information about
named entities which reside in traditional authorities.

"Stand alone" is a complex concept in webbed environment. Can we say that a
description "stands alone" if a comparable static description can be
harvested from the webbed description including the things it links to
(e.g., BIBFRAME Authorities)? If so, and if the link to BIBFRAME/FRBR Work
descriptions can be included as targets of the BIBFRAME Authority
relationship rather than as simple related record links, then I think we
could have the division of descriptive labor which FRBR envisioned without
sacrificing the ability to assemble and communicate "stand alone"
descriptions of Expressions/Manifestations or Works/Instances, or requiring
a major reconceptualization of BIBFRAME, or requiring an overhaul of MARC
its twilight years.

Stephen


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Stephen,****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Yours,****
>
> Kevin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *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****
>
>
> *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****
>



-- 
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