 |
 |
Comments in-line. Yours, Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:15 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently > > > On 7/31/14, 3:03 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > 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). > > The relationship is that all three have the same subject, ex:instance1 (for > example): > > ex:instance1 bf:publishedBy _:xx . > _xx a bf:Organization . > _xx bf:label "Hamlyn" . > ex:instance1 bf:publishedAt _:yy . > _yy a bf:Place . > _yy bf:label "London" . > > etc. > > A new publication (e.g. a reprint) I believe becomes a new instance, so there > would be only one publication event per instance. Correct. > (Catalogers?? true? even > for serials?!) > > Of course, these have the "blank-node-+-label" problem again (still?). _:xx and _:yy do not need to be blank nodes. We've been using a lot of blank nodes in examples, but they do not need to be. > > kc > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet