Print

Print


Without getting into the oddities of the universe :) we see it as this:

 > bf:Work --> (frbr:Work / frbr:Expressions)
 > bf:Instance --> frbr:Manifestation
 > (bf:HeldItem / bf:HeldMaterial) --> frbr:Item

Yours,
Kevin


On 07/28/2014 12:55 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> I think that Instance is equivalent to Manifestation, rather than Item
> in the FRBR model.  The rationale being that HeldItem / HeldMaterial is
> Item. Thus my mental mapping is:
>
> bf:Work --> (frbr:Work / frbr:Expressions)
> bf:Instance --> frbr:Manifestation
> (bf:HeldItem / bf:HeldMaterial) --> frbr:Item
>
> Now ... whether something can be both a physical object in the real
> world AND a conceptual annotation at the same time ... well... that
> boggles my mind quite a lot, but we should start a new thread if people
> want to also discuss that :)
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM, [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>      >>> 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?).
>
>     I wonder now whether you're pointing to a specific example of a more
>     general problem: Bibframe's model contemplates works and instances
>     (aka items), but not manifestations (or expressions). Coming from
>     data expressed in one model (say, FRBR) which _does_ possess a
>     richer ontology, how do we re-express relationships in Bibframe that
>     begin as relationships from either works or instances to
>     intermediating classes (or for that matter, between intermediating
>     classes)?
>
>     In other words, is this example indirectly a critique of the
>     relatively "flat" Bibframe model?
>
>     ---
>     A. Soroka
>     The University of Virginia Library
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305