Comments in-line.
But, before that, to offer a point of clarification. An Instance should
represent 1 Thing. So, if something is published in London (perhaps
with British English spelling) /and/ also in New York (with American
english spelling) these would be treated as two distinct Instances.
Instances should not represent an aggregated resource, but have 1-to-1
relationships to Works and other Instances.
On 07/31/2014 06:03 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> The example
>
> <http://example.org/1> a bf:Instance,
> bf:publishedBy [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Hamlyn" ] ;
> bf:publishedAt [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ] ;
> bf:publishedOn "1966" .
>
> is not preferable because it does not model the publication process right.
>
> bf:publishedBy / bf:publishedAt / bf:publishedOn have no relationship
> between each other and that will become fatal, for example, if there is
> more than one publication in the lifecycle of the instance (e.g. reprints).
Reprints would be new Instances.
>
> Publication is an event, I agree with Rob. The British Library is using
> in their model publication events, too.
I have no problem treating the concept of Publication (or Distribution
or Manufacture, etc) as Events. I am curious, however, if there is a
more utile way to approach this problem. Those "Events" are not really
re-usable. Now, "reusability" is not the only criteria, but an Instance
should nominally also only ever be a manifestation of a single
publication event.
I'm looking for cases when this would not be the case - and Karen has
presented us with something - but the interpretation is still a little
unclear.
>
> Such type of events can be recorded using event attribute lists, by a
> simple bf:publication, tying the relations together, like this:
>
> <http://example.org/1> a bf:Instance,
> bf:publication [
> event:place place:Chicago ;
> event:agent corp:UniversityOfChicago
> ], [
> event:place place:Paris ;
> event:agent corp:GautherVillars
> ], [
> event:date "1955"^xsd:date
> ] .
> place:Chicago rdfs:label "Chicago"@en .
> corp:UniversityOfChicago rdfs:label "University of Chicago Press"@en .
> place:Paris rdfs:label "Paris"@en .
> corp:GautherVillars "Gauther-Villars"@en .
This does not address the transcription requirement of RDA.
>
> The semantics of this RDF is: "The Bibframe instance
> http://example.org/1 was published at Chicago by University of Chicago
> and also at Paris by Gauther-Villars in the year of 1955".
If this is the proper interpretation, the approach presently is to
therefore create two Instances, one representing the Parisian
publication and the other representing the Chicago one. To illustrate that:
<http://example.org/2> a bf:Instance,
bf:publishedBy [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "U of Chicago" ] ;
bf:publishedAt [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "Chicago" ] ;
bf:publishedOn "1955" .
<http://example.org/3> a bf:Instance,
bf:publishedBy [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Gauthier-Villars" ] ;
bf:publishedAt [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "Paris" ] ;
bf:publishedOn "1955" .
I would very readily entertain a relationship between those two
Instances, but I'm not sure I know what that relationship is.
Yours,
Kevin
>
> There is no longer the need to carry the information in "statement"
> sequences like in MARC , it can all be encoded into clear attribute
> sequences, one fact by another, for better evaluation by the machine
> interpreting the triples.
>
> And it is easy to extend the domain of bf:publication to people, places,
> dates, corporate bodies (publishers), or even to WS84 geographic
> coordinates in addition to place names, for example, to pin the location
> on OpenStreetMap or Google Maps, wherever you want.
>
> Jörg
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:18 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Kevin posted:
>
> >publishedAt
> >producedAt
> >distributedAt
> >manufacturedAt
>
> Good. The more uniformity in terminology amongst our standards the
> better.
>
> In terms of including jurisdiction in "publishedAt" etc., that data is
> in a fixed field in both AACR2 and RDA records. I is just a matter of
> being uniform and less redundant in mapping that data to Bibframe, in
> order to be more informative to patrons.
>
> Few OPACs display fixed field data, and I suspect the same will apply
> to Bibframe codes.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>
