+1 to all of these :) And to add:


Do we need a title resource at all, or is a string sufficient?

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>

> Having now for the first time taken a close look at bf:Title, I'm a bit
> taken aback.
> 1) "Title being addressed."

According to my deproliferation, I read this as "value".  And hence the
actual string that's being turned into a resource.
If there's a need for a bf:Title (per 0) then there's a need for the value.

I think the question is, if there is a need, is this the entire title or
only some part of it that's being decomposed into the resource.

Otherwise ...

What is the purpose of this specialized property in the face of the
> bf:label that is available to all bf:Resources? What would cause someone to
> use it? Is this just MARC 2045$a in a new format?

Yes. Or is it $a plus $b?  Or does $b go in partTitle, but then where does
$p go?  If we're recomposing, lets do it right :)

1.5) and

What about getting rid of bf:title and bf:titleStatement, and just using
bf:label?  Quite independently of any other decision regarding titles as
resources and their attributes.

> 2) "Qualifier of title
> information to make it unique."
> Working for the uniqueness of labels goes very much against the practice
> of Linked Data. The Title entity is already possessed of an identifier. If
> anything more is needed to ensure uniqueness, isn't something badly wrong
> with the identifier?

+1.  As currently described, titleQualifier seems to do more harm than
good.  There's no example, so it's hard to tell exactly what's going on.

Is this just 245 $v?

> 3) and
> Is there any purpose to this distinction or is this just a case of MARC
> 245$n and $p being mechanically preserved? In fact these two properties
> have the same range.

+1.  If partNumber is really a number (which I don't think it is, as $n can
hold "Part One") then it could be xsd:integer. Can a single title have both
a partNumber and a partTitle?

3.5)  See question about $b

> 4) "Class or genre to
> which a Work or Instance belongs."
> and
> "Other distinguishing
> characteristic of a work, such as version, etc.."
> These seem very strange to me. In what way are these properties of a title
> at all? Is this just a mechanical transfer from MARC 245$k and $s? This
> seems to be information that should be recorded on the Work or Instance.

In order and in my opinion: No, Yes, Definitely :)

Same with copyright from Provider?  (Or better decompose provider back on
to the Instance)