Rob, right, it's a single publication event in which two publishers 
issued the same item simultaneously with both publishers listed on the 
title page. (It's often a US/UK thing, due to the copyright agreement 
between the two countries.)

However, I think that your example, while accurate (and I like the 
treatment of publication as an event, although library cataloging 
doesn't describe it that way), provides the same dilemma that I believe 
Kevin is trying to avoid, which is the creation of a blank node between 
bf:Instance and the publication information. As you may recall, my email 
of 7/14/14 asking a question about SPARQL demonstrated that blank nodes 
would prevent retrieval of publisher names in systems that do not 
"skolemize" (i.e. make non-blank) the nodes. For this reason, BIBFRAME 
would need to create an identity for each publication event rather than 
using a blank node.

The only way that I see around the creation of a publication statement 
"node" is to separate display and data, unless there are use cases for 
the data that also require an accurate combination of place and 
publisher. Perhaps it's not worth trying to avoid the publisher 
statement node, but note that in most cases, there is only one place and 
one publisher. Yet we of course want to always treat this information 
uniformly. As is so often the case, the exceptional case could 
complicate what normally would be a quite simple set of statements.

I have no idea how one goes about deciding a question like this, other 
than trying out operations on a lot of data.


On 7/31/14, 12:00 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Hi Karen,
> Is that one Instance with two publishers working together? Or is it 
> two Instances, each with one publisher?
> The latter is clearly not a problem, so I guess it's the former?
> To try and break it down further... is this correct:
> In the lifecycle of the Work, there was an Instance published.
> There were agents involved in that publication event were University 
> of Chicago Press and Gauther-Villars.
> University of Chicago Press is in Chicago.
> Gauther-Villars is in Paris.
> The event occurred in 1955.
> And thus we would need something like:
> [ a bf:Instance
>   bf:publicationEvent [ a bf:Event
>     bf:agent [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "University of Chicago 
> Press" ; bf:place [ bf:label "Chicago" ] ]
>     bf:agent [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Gauther-Villars ; 
> bf:place [ bf:label "Paris" ] ]
>     bf:date "1955"^xsd:date
>   ]
> ]
> Rob
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>     Kevin,
>     Removing these layers between the subject and the description
>     would simplify use of the data, IMO. In particular, anyplace where
>     one can NOT use a blank node there is a gain in ease of use.
>     Unfortunately, this is possible input from the AACRs and RDA:
>     *260* 	*##**$a*Paris :*$b*Gauthier-Villars ;*$a*Chicago
>     :*$b*University of Chicago Press,*$c*1955.
>     e.g. Paris : Gauthier-Villars; Chicago : University of Chicago
>     Press, 1955.
>     That could logically be expressed as two separate publication
>     statements (I assume the current display form harks back to
>     limited space on cards):
>     Paris : Gauthier-Villars, 1955.
>     Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1955.
>     As simple triples, though, there is nothing to retain the
>     connection between the individual places and the publishers since
>     there is no order inherent between triples.
>     x bf:publisher "Gauther-Villars" .
>     x bf:publisher "University of Chicago Press" .
>     x bf:date "1955" .
>     x bf:pubPlace "Chicago" .
>     x bf:pubPlace "Paris" .
>     (NB: this is not the only place in our data that repetition of
>     data elements and the reliance on the order of elements creates
>     difficulties. That is another reason to do some re-thinking of our
>     data in light of new technologies.)
>     We struggled with this when developing the RDF for RDA, and I
>     don't think that there is (yet) a solution that works well in
>     practice. RDA retains the concept of "publisher statement" that is
>     conceived of as a single multi-part description. Thus, in RDF the
>     RDA "publisher statement" would be a node with place, publisher
>     and date. The complex statement above could be two different nodes
>     and that would solve the issue of connecting places and publishers
>     (while relying on UI developers to provide the traditional
>     display), but means creating a publisher node like the one
>     BIBFRAME has today. Assigning those nodes identifiers doesn't
>     really make them re-usable, though, as you point out.
>     Given that BIBFRAME has a property for the display form of the
>     "publisher statement," it may come down to a question of purpose:
>     apart from display, what do we anticipate doing with places and
>     providers, and do those functions (e.g. search, linking to maps,
>     creating timelines) require us to maintain the proper
>     place/provider relationship when there is more than one?
>     My 2 cents is that this is one of those areas where separating
>     display from data could have some practical advantages. Your
>     solution provides both.
>     kc
>     p.s. This gives me additional respect for the document + data
>     method, which relies on the document for structure and display,
>     and still surfaces useful data. See how WorldCat does this with
> <> -
>     On 7/31/14, 9:50 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
>>     Dear All,
>>     Recording "Provider" information, such as who published, produced,
>>     manufactured, or distributed something, where that happened, and when,
>>     is presently modelled in such a way that a resource is devoted to this
>>     information.  An example:
>>     <>  <>  a bf:Instance,
>>           bf:publication [
>>               a bf:Provider ;
>>               bf:providerDate "1966" ;
>>               bf:providerName [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Hamlyn" ] ;
>>               bf:providerPlace [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ]
>>           ] .
>>     In the above, the resource employs a blank node, but it would not need
>>     to.  Regardless, this approach has a couple of significant problems:
>>     1) Semantically, "providerDate" is unclear because it is actually
>>     supposed to convey the "publication date."  And the (publication) date,
>>     in fact, is an attribute of the Instance (the manifestation basically)
>>     and not the "Provider" resource. (And simply bf:provider would be better
>>     than bf:providerName, but that is a small point.)
>>     2) It is not very reusable.  The above bf:Provider is only applicable to
>>     things published by Hamlyn in London in 1966.
>>     We'd like to explore simplifying how this information is handled in
>>     bibframe by eliminating the bf:Provider resource altogether and creating
>>     12 properties, 3 each for publisher, manufacturer, distributor, and
>>     producer, all of which represent the major use cases as has long been
>>     expressible in MARC.  These properties would be associated directly with
>>     the Instance.  As an example, the above would become:
>>     <>  <>  a bf:Instance,
>>           bf:publishedBy [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Hamlyn" ] ;
>>           bf:publishedAt [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ] ;
>>           bf:publishedOn "1966" .
>>     You can imagine 3 each for manufactured*, distributed*, produced*.
>>     This would clarify the semantics and do away with a resource that would
>>     probably often be identified via a blank node because it is reusable in
>>     only fairly specific circumstances.  (The above solution does not
>>     preclude being able determine all the things published by Hamlyn in
>>     London in 1966, if that is of specific interest.)
>>     FYI: There has been no discussion whether bf:providerStatement would
>>     change in any way, and I see no reason for it to change (except,
>>     perhaps, to add publisherStatement, distributorStatement, etc. for
>>     clarity and parity purposes, versus the one catch-all
>>     providerStatement).  bf:providerStatement is really designed to address
>>     the transcription aspect expected in RDA whereas the proposed properties
>>     are designed to capture more structured data.  It's an undesirable
>>     duplication, but it is what it is.
>>     Can anyone foresee issues with this approach?
>>     Yours,
>>     Kevin
>>     --
>>     Kevin Ford
>>     Network Development and MARC Standards Office
>>     Library of Congress
>>     Washington, DC
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     m:1-510-435-8234  <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

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