Print

Print


I meant that in the context of Rob's example -- within a  bf:Title I don't recall seeing a bf:identifier.
--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers
> 
> On 7/24/14, 1:27 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> > (I don't think we've thought much about providing identifiers for
> > titles.)
> I hope you *have* because they are in your data ;-)
> 
>   bf:workTitle
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7> ;
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7>
> 
>      bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
> 
>      a bf:Title .
> 
>    bf:instanceTitle
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
> 
>      bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
> 
>      a bf:Title .
> 
> 
> Those are from a BF record, converted from MARC.[1] I found them rather
> odd, myself. It makes some sense to give identifiers to work titles, although
> generally the work title alone does not identify a work.  But I think that this is
> actually evidence for a discussion that we have not had yet on the massive
> level of indirection (blank and non-blank nodes) in BIBFRAME.
> 
> kc
> 
> [1] http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459.rdf
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet