I think that Instance is equivalent to Manifestation, rather than Item in
the FRBR model.  The rationale being that HeldItem / HeldMaterial is Item.
Thus my mental mapping is:

bf:Work --> (frbr:Work / frbr:Expressions)
bf:Instance --> frbr:Manifestation
(bf:HeldItem / bf:HeldMaterial) --> frbr:Item

Now ... whether something can be both a physical object in the real world
AND a conceptual annotation at the same time ... well... that boggles my
mind quite a lot, but we should start a new thread if people want to also
discuss that :)


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>

> On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> 1. Our evidence fragment "Th. Mann" resides on manifestation level,
> but creators and contributors are work- or expression level elements:
> Therefore we cannot even think of embedding the bf:creator statement within
> the arbitrary XML within the bf:responsibilityStatement
> >>
> >> Bibframe makes bf:creator available for instances (sensibly, it seems
> to me). Or is the problem to which you are referring the lack of a class
> corresponding specifically to the notion of a manifestation?
> >
> > The SoR to be transcribed is taken from the manifestation, however the
> RDF statement about creatorship usually resides in a different graph,
> pertaining to the work stratum (of, say, FRBR). The manifestation resource
> is linked to the work resource, but here the task would be to link some
> fragment of the manifestation description with a specific triple of the
> work description (the text fragment plus some information found elsewhere
> plus the intellectual activity of the cataloguer culminated in that
> specific triple - why shouldn't that be documented within the data we
> create?).
> I wonder now whether you're pointing to a specific example of a more
> general problem: Bibframe's model contemplates works and instances (aka
> items), but not manifestations (or expressions). Coming from data expressed
> in one model (say, FRBR) which _does_ possess a richer ontology, how do we
> re-express relationships in Bibframe that begin as relationships from
> either works or instances to intermediating classes (or for that matter,
> between intermediating classes)?
> In other words, is this example indirectly a critique of the relatively
> "flat" Bibframe model?
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library

Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305