Kevin said:

>Nonetheless, I still can't help but think that a lot of the problem
>is associated with the notion that a Holding-as-annotation is somehow
>*not* a stand-alone resource in its own right.

Kevin, thank you for your clarifying posts.

Holdings record item specific information, such as "Autographed by
author", and in some cases, original printing vs. reprint, bound vs.
paperback, regular vs. delux or library binding.  (This may change if
more than one ISBN?  I still think Bibframe must allow for more than
one ISBN per instance record; we don't what three records for the same
edition in three bindings.)

Kevin quoted:

>> If multiple instances of different works have been bound together
>>into a single book, they all share the same item record in our
>>present  bibliographic database....
The circulation systems of some ILS we support can handle more than
one item record per manifestation (aka instace) record, e.g., serials
and multivolume sets, but can not handle more than one manifestation
(aka instance) record per physical item, e.g., boundwiths, tete beche.   
We have to do a composite record.

Attention needs to be paid to how Bibframe would interface with
Acquisitions and Circulation modules.  Bibframe may create a greater
have/have-not dichotomy than RDA.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________