The following is from a discussion paper [1] being presented at the MARC Advisory Committee at ALA. It has information about BIBFRAME treatment of relators (MARC relators [2] and RDA/FRBR entity relationships [3]) that I have not yet seen on the BIBFRAME site, so I thought it might be of interest:


In BIBFRAME these relationships are handled as follows.  The illustrations shown below use the RDF turtle notation. (See Introduction to Turtle used in MAC Papers.)

In the BIBFRAME vocabulary the relationships between cataloging resources and between cataloging resources and names (commonly called roles or relators) such as those in Appendices J and I respectively are accommodated by sets of properties with the "escape" to designate any relationship not specifically provided.  This provides flexibility and encourages efficiency in expressing the relationships via URIs for the descriptions of the related resources where possible. 

For the cataloging resource relationships the set goes from the most general, relatedResource, to the general (which are essentially the high level relationship categories in the RDA Appendix J (e.g., equivalent, accompanies, precedes, etc.) to a number of specific relationships (series, translation, dataSource, supplement, etc.).  The latter includes the specific supersedes and precedes sub relationships used by the ISSN system.  Not all of the 300+ and their reciprocals are expressed as properties.  All of the included properties efficiently link directly to the URI of the description of the related resource.  If a more specific relationship is needed, then the relationship can be expressed in URI or literal form, and the link to the description of the related resource can be specified via the Related class.  

work1  a  bf:Work;
            bf:accompanies  <work2 URI>.

work1 a bf:Work
            bf:accompanies   relationship1.
relationship1  a  bf:Related;
            bf:relationship  "augmented by catalogue";
            bf:identifier  <work2 URI>.

The relationships between cataloging resources and names as RDA list in Appendix J and the one aligned with it in MARC that also provides codes are similarly expressed as properties with a very general property relatedAgent and three general properties, agent, creator, and contributor, with additional relationships expressed in literal or URI form as above.

work1  a  bf:Work;
            bf:contributor  <URI for illustrator's name>.

work1 a bf:Work
            bf:contributor   relationship1.
relationship1  a  bf:Related;
            bf:identifier  <URI for illustrator's name>.

I'm assuming that the "relationship1" in these examples is a blank node, although it isn't indicated as such. I'm not clear on how one knows the nature of the value of bf:identifier, particularly when the relationship is a literal string. Perhaps I'm overlooking something?


[3] Not having access to the RDA toolkit, I guess the best other source for these is the registry recently announced:

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