Print

Print


While reliance on a publicationStatement would provide identifying information about what information was actually on the piece, it does not provide actionable data that can be used for discovery (for example).

This problem of aggregated statements with significant internal semantics occurs with terrible frequency in bibliographic data.

If discovery of resources based on bf data is a valid use case, then this cannot be supported by literal publicationStatements.  Discovery needs to be based on the data, and it needs to respect and utilize the internal relationships between the pieces of complex aggregations of elements.  I don't think you can get away with a choice between atomized data without internal relationships and aggregations of literal text.

     John Attig
     Penn State University
     [log in to unmask]

| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
| > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
| > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:04 PM
| > To: [log in to unmask]
| > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
| > 
| > 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
| > ##$aParis :$bGauthier-Villars ;$aChicago :$bUniversity of Chicago
| > Press,$c1955.
| > 
| > 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