Print

Print


Having now for the first time taken a close look at bf:Title, I'm a bit taken aback. It appears to be a somewhat mechanical rendition of MARC 245 into some kind of RDF. I agree entirely with Karen Coyle about the need for a discussion about indirection generally, but even on the assumption that titles are to become entities in their own right (and addressed as such), bf:Title seems to me to need much pruning and improvement. I've included some specifics below, and would much appreciate any response from the Bibframe maintainers.

1) http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleValue.html: "Title being addressed."

What is the purpose of this specialized property in the face of the bf:label that is available to all bf:Resources? What would cause someone to use it? Is this just MARC 2045$a in a new format?

2) http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleQualifier.html: "Qualifier of title information to make it unique."

Working for the uniqueness of labels goes very much against the practice of Linked Data. The Title entity is already possessed of an identifier. If anything more is needed to ensure uniqueness, isn't something badly wrong with the identifier?

3) http://bibframe.org/vocab/partNumber.html and http://bibframe.org/vocab/partTitle.html

Is there any purpose to this distinction or is this just a case of MARC 245$n and $p being mechanically preserved? In fact these two properties have the same range.

4) http://bibframe.org/vocab/formDesignation.html: "Class or genre to which a Work or Instance belongs."
and
http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleAttribute.html: "Other distinguishing characteristic of a work, such as version, etc.."

These seem very strange to me. In what way are these properties of a title at all? Is this just a mechanical transfer from MARC 245$k and $s? This seems to be information that should be recorded on the Work or Instance. 

There are some other oddities to me in bf:Title, and it's not at all clear to me that the amount of indirection it requires is healthy in itself, but these above are perhaps the most odd and confusing things. If we can pare down bf:Title, I suspect it will become more obvious to us whether or not a separate title entity is really useful and should continue to exist.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library


On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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