Hash: SHA1


Am 27.07.2014 14:10, schrieb [log in to unmask]:

>> Thus like in the TEI scenario a bf:responsibilityStatement should allow
>> internal structure (i.e. arbitrary XML) able to insulate and annotate forms of
>> names, and furthermore should link this name to the person referenced by the
>> name -preferably to resource-specific statements about this person.
> I'm not sure I follow this. If the claim is that the sort of information in
> a responsibility statement is too complex for it to be obvious to us right now how
> it should be done in Bibframe, why would the solution be to include arbitrary
> complexity in Bibframe data? If responsibility statements are complex, can't
> we treat with them as entities in their own right? Wouldn't it be better to
> keep the Bibframe data simple and lightweight and let
> bf:responsibilityStatement be a link to some other kind of representation?
> For example, I might digitize a photograph of a copyright notice page, you
> might work up a stanza of TEI, and someone else might do something entirely
>  different. If I understand the purpose of the responsibility statement
> correctly (and I welcome correction) it is to record the parties responsible
> for the resource described based on evidence from that resource.

I did not exactly propose a solution. Having "Statement of Responsibility"
as a concept is one thing, providing a morphology or data model of all
SoRs past, present and future would be something anybody (and especially
Bibframe) should avoid (same thing with a universal theory of the functions
of any particle found in names for persons in all scripts and cultures
from 4.000 BC to now). So /usually/ recording strings should suffice
(and embedding some statemens with transcriptions into digitized images
of title pages is indeed an attractive variant of this).

Our traditional descriptions did sacrifice some faithfulness of transcription
for the sake of supplying expanded abbreviations (in brackets for the
benefit of the knowing) but were never able to encode additional information
in a more general sense: There are many examples of Peter Miller editing
or continuing the work of Peter Miller (father of the first) and one
can only wish to have data that allows displays where you move the mouse
over "Peter Miller" in the SoR and some popup provides you with
"Peter Miller III (1850-1920), editor of this" - information recorded
in one of the access points which actually have been crafted because
these persons and their functions are mentioned somewhere - rsp. not
somewhere but exactly in those statements we transcribe because they
mention these persons and indicate their functions.

Thus, yes, I think you understood me right and I too think that modeling
the complexity of titles ("The development of ut pictura poesis in the work
of Gertrude Stein, Wallace Stevens, and Virginia Woolf / Christopher Wretman"
has a quite interesting mix of language changes and personal names)
might be beyond the scope of Bibframe. But the necessity of delving into
this complexity is probably not beyond the needs of some users of Bibframe
and therefore one should think about how transitions to more detailed
analysis of "string" elements could be made possible.


>> 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?).

This could be achieved implicitly by embedding the "target" triple within
the subgraph spanned by the SoR (or in my reasoning switching back to
RDF within the arbitrary XML constituting the value of
bf:responsibilityStatement) but IMHO this would completeley break any
W-E-M-I separation achieved by associating statements to specific

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -