On 10/3/13 1:18 PM, Godby,Jean wrote:
>   But the problem with doing nothing is that we would have no conceptual underpinning for asserting that some collections of creative works have the same intellectual content – a problem that publishers have not addressed in any meaningful way. So we continue to look for a solution.

It has been addressed in a meaningful way, IMO, and the proposal is here:

This proposal allows one to "cluster" bibliographic information at any 
level of abstraction (from Work to Item) around having the same 
intellectual content (for some definition of "intellectual content"). 
The advantage with this proposal is that it does not require the 
producer of the metadata to determine which is the canonical Work and 
which is the variation on that Work. It also allows one to create 
relationships between bibliographic descriptions at exist at different 
levels of detail and abstraction. A wikipedia page for a book could be 
related to an Amazon entry for a particular edition of that book by 
using "CommonEndeavor".

The problem with "example of a work" (or instance, in BIBFRAME parlance) 
is that it loses meaning if someone declares the wikipedia page for the 
Work to be an example of the Amazon product entry. By doing so, you 
implicitly have defined the Amazon product to be the Work, and the 
wikipedia entry to be an instance or example of that work.

I don't think that "workness" is a universal concept, and I'm not sure 
that even if we did define it clearly what percentage of the population 
would have the necessary knowledge to know a work from an instance (or 
example, or manifestation).


> All the best,
> Jean
> ________________________________________
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Vladimir Skvortsov <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME position paper is now available
> Hello Jean,
> That is very delicate but important matter in my opinion, to find right
> balance between existing standard properties and new ones being created
> for more informativeness.
> Please note that isInstanceOf in the Figure 2.1 of proposed document is
> essentially the same as standard rdfs:subClassOf, except for the case when
> Instance is a single subject not defined as Class. That is BIBFRAME
> Instance. However even in this case we could consider Instance consisting
> of copies and define it as Class as well. It leads us away from bf: and
> oa:, of course, but uses standard properties that corresponds
> to “minimalist philosophy emerging from the Schema Bib Extend initiative”,
> as I see, and it makes sense for me and creates no dubbing. Besides, such
> approach allows to describe any hierarchies – semantic ones, like FRBR, as
> OCLC proposes, or structural, like Serials – see for example my
> On the other hand if new properties (in bf: or oa:) are defined correctly
> with correct references to standard ones, one can use them if he wants,
> for example, going to use custom applications in line with standard
> browsers and crawlers. Last ones would work correctly with such properties
> as well.
> Best wishes,
> Vladimir Skvortsov,
> National Library of Russia
> Saint-Petersburg

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet