Hello, Karen,
Thank you for reading my composition on BIBFRAME Model.
You wrote: "So it seems to me that 
linking a bf:Instance to a bf:Work ("isInstanceOf") fits the workflow best".
That is absolutely what I meant in cited area. Your example, as it seems, is a lepton to the same money-box.

As to bi-directional links, I doubt they coresspond to  RDF, and, hense, may cause problems when search engines are oriented on RDF.

I look forward to hear from you on the rest of my composition.

Четверг, 8 августа 2013, 0:00 -04:00 от BIBFRAME automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>:
>There is 1 mess age totalling 65 lines in this issue.
>Topics of the day:
>  1. Modeling
>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:23:16 -0700
>From: Karen Coyle < [log in to unmask] >
>Subject: Re: Modeling
>Vladimir, there is much in here so it will take many readings to fully 
>comprehend. I did want to make a comment on one area, however. You say:
>"For instance predicate б⌠hasInstanseб■ gives downward link, while upward 
>links are more preferable. Having downward links only, to create record 
>at Instance level one should change record at Work level, meanwhile 
>these operations may request employees of different qualification."
>I think that you are right in that the linking must be related to the 
>workflow. To my mind, the key aspect of the workflow is that the 
>cataloger works with the bf:Instance in hand, and logically from that 
>seeks out the appropriate bf:Work to link to. If there is no appropriate 
>bf:Work, then one must be created. But one would never create a bf:Work 
>if there were no bf:Instance being cataloged. So it seems to me that 
>linking a bf:Instance to a bf:Work ("isInstanceOf") fits the workflow best.
>Note, however, that bf:Instance includes a property "instanceOf" which 
>doesn't appear on the diagram, so the arrow on the diagram could be 
>bi-directional. However, there is another aspect to this. It is probably 
>best to have a single property, not two properties that could be used in 
>conflict with each other, e.g.
>AWork > hasInstance > BInstance
>BInstance > isInstanceOf > FWork
>This violates the statement in the Primer "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an 
>instance of one and only one BIBFRAME Work."
>The two properties could be defined as the inverse of each other, but 
>all that does is to make clear that the above two triples cannot both be 
>true. Inverse-ness allows you to use one and infer the other, but it 
>doesn't keep you from making that kind of mistake.
>On 8/6/13 8:09 AM, Vladimir Skvortsov wrote:
>> Dear collegues,
>> Please find athttp://
>> my 'Some general ideas on BIBFRAME Model'. I will be happy if it seems
>> interesting to you.
>> Vladimir Skvortsov
>> Head of department,
>> National Library of Russia,
>> Saint Petersburg,
>> Russia
>Karen Coyle
>[log in to unmask]
>ph: 1-510-540-7596
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet
>End of BIBFRAME Digest - 6 Aug 2013 to 7 Aug 2013 (#2013-138)

Владимир Скворцов