This all sounds good. One last thought about roles--instead of putting a <relationToWork> element in the BIBFRAME Authority, could we define a "HasUnrecognizedRelationship" relator for use when converting a bib access point with an unrecognized $e? The $e text would then stay in the bib data. I worry that (1) if <relationToWork> is in the BIBFRAME Authority, people will use it without the restrictions you intend, and (2) that it will inevitably result in multiple BIBFRAME Authorities for the same person, given the boundless creativity that has been applied to recording relator terms.

A good weekend to you, too.

Stephen


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If there is no external authority, I
> still have a context in the BIBFRAME Authority to record a locally
> preferred label and alt labels for local use across a number of bib
> objects.
-- Yep, that's one of the benefits of the abstraction layer.



> Is there a way to get that kind of functionality--selective
> retrieval and use of a specified source's data or locally preferred
> data for indexing and display--from a direct link?
-- It's hard to say.  It breaks down when we start parsing "direct link."  In short, it would be possible to link directly to VIAF for example and still index variants and cache the display name within a system.  You still have to come up with a solution for "locally preferred data."  Again, not impossible, but by adopting the BIBFRAME Authority approach as a constant we solve this issue *and* design a consistent way of representing people, places, etc in our data.



> I'd prefer to have creator
> and preferred title (as opposed to transcribed title), i.e., the
> authorized access point for the work, maintained in something like a
> BIBFRAME Authority, either as independent information or with links to
> an authorizing source.
-- Duly noted.  I'd still like to see where the data takes us.  Perhaps a similar "update" mechanism that would be needed for BIBFRAME Authorities could serve this purpose (if such a purpose is a needed/desirable end solution).



> I'd keep role information as part of the link from the bib
> object to the BIBFRAME Authority rather than as part of the data the
> Authority contains--BibObjectA--HasEditorContributor--BIBFRAMEAuthority
> rather than BibObjectA--HasContributor--BIBFRAMEAuthority-as-Editor.
-- I wanted to look at this quickly.  I'm not entirely sure if you are trying to capture the fact that the BIBFRAMEAuthority was a contributor *and* editor, or just an editor.  In either case, I would expect (and this is by all measures the preferred method) to see something like this:

BibObjectA--HasContributor--BIBFRAMEAuthority
BibObjectA--HasEditor--BIBFRAMEAuthority

The above assumes you want to say that BIBFRAMEAuthority was an editor *and* contributor.  If only an "editor" (because in RDA we can infer BIBFRAMEAuthority is a contributor), then the first one would not be represented.

Role information within a BIBFRAME Authority should only ever be used when dealing with cases such as seen in the Bad Data example.  I see role information within a BIBFRAME Authority as an accommodation during a transition period.  I see the above method as being the sole method in the future.



Enjoy the weekend,
Kevin






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe
>
> Many thanks to Kevin Ford for his responses!
>
> This sounds encouraging. I'm fine with treating traditional title and
> name/title authorities as BIBFRAME Works. That will mean that BIBFRAME
> Works will need to be able to represent alternative access points for a
> work, something the MARC bib format and bib cataloging rules generally
> don't provide for, as well as a way to source those alternative access
> points. The MARC Authority format has had significant problems, too,
> with describing FRBR Works, e.g., no good way to express Work-level
> subjects in authorities for works.
>
> I am still unclear about what "direct links" means. As I understand it,
> links can do either of two basic things. They can give the user a place
> to click to go elsewhere, or they can give the browser a place to go to
> bring back data for rendering a page or other browser tasks. I
> understand a "direct link" as more like the former and BIBFRAME
> Authorities as an extension of the latter. With the "lightweight
> absraction layer" of the BIBFRAME Authority I have the option to
> program behaviors like retrieving a preferred label and alt labels from
> a specified authority source and including both in indexing and the
> former in a "record" display. If there is no external authority, I
> still have a context in the BIBFRAME Authority to record a locally
> preferred label and alt labels for local use across a number of bib
> objects. Is there a way to get that kind of functionality--selective
> retrieval and use of a specified source's data or locally preferred
> data for indexing and display--from a direct link?
>
> I'm less comfortable with this: "the BIBFRAME Work representing the
> FRBR Expression would actually include a reference to the Work's
> creator (in addition to and not just its translator) and it would
> include the Work's "formal" title, all without having to follow a
> relationship to a separate BIBFRAME Work." I'd prefer to have creator
> and preferred title (as opposed to transcribed title), i.e., the
> authorized access point for the work, maintained in something like a
> BIBFRAME Authority, either as independent information or with links to
> an authorizing source. If that authorizing source is a BIBFRAME Work
> and not a traditional authority, that's fine with me. I'd hope we could
> promote the use of a shared, accessible file for BIBFRAME Work records
> which authorize preferred title and name/title access points.
>
> And since it's Friday, I'll throw in the other two things I'd change
> about the BIBFRAME Authority model (which others have already
> suggested). I'd keep role information as part of the link from the bib
> object to the BIBFRAME Authority rather than as part of the data the
> Authority contains--BibObjectA--HasEditorContributor--BIBFRAMEAuthority
> rather than BibObjectA--HasContributor--BIBFRAMEAuthority-as-Editor.
> And I'd expect a link out from the BIBFRAME Authority only to the
> preferred external authority. That external authority is the preferred
> place to express same-as relationships among authorities. If a system
> has a use for the URIs of those other authorities, it can profile to
> retrieve them and code them for whatever use it plans to make of them;
> but they shouldn't be included in the default BIBFRAME Authority model.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
>
> > 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?
> -- I think - think - you are refering to title and name/title
> authorities (my assumption is also based on your next sentence).  If
> that is correct, in our experimentation, we've been treating title and
> name/title authorities as BIBFRAME Works, not as BIBFRAME
> Authorities.  We create a direct link between two BIBFRAME Works in
> this case, one which might be the FRBR Work and the other the FRBR
> Expression.  As you presented it now, I would expect direct links
> between BIBFRAME Works to associate FRBR Work and FRBR Expression
> resources without recourse to a BIBFRAME Authority.  Now, if I haven't
> understood the issue, can you please try again?
>
>
> > "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)?
> -- Fair enough.  I oversimplified.
>
> Naturally, for example, there would like be links pointing to URIs for
> BIBFRAME Authority resources for people, such as creators, translators,
> etc, involved in the creation of a Work.  One would have to follow the
> link to learn what those URIs mean and that's not quite
> "standalone."  What I was refering to was the idea that the BIBFRAME
> Work representing the FRBR Expression would actually include a
> reference to the Work's creator (in addition to and not just its
> translator) and it would include the Work's "formal" title, all without
> having to follow a relationship to a separate BIBFRAME Work.  I don't
> know if that offers sufficient clarification.  Again, we're still
> seeing where the data goes before settling on a best practice.
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:01 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Holds and ILL with Bibframe
> >
> > [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 defines both expressionOf and
> > hasExpression 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]] 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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