Print

Print


I'm not sure if you a merely noting general use cases for treating strings as special cases, but we've considered alternate methods to handle transliteration and capturing pronunciation is, I believe, out of scope (or at least it has never been defined as a use case; transliteration, however, will be necessary).  Our thinking about how transliteration might be handled is a separate thread (distinct from the bf:Title topic of this thread, which is the only reason I am being cagey here).

Yours,
Kevin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:Title Was: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data:
> Identifiers
> 
> The specialized need to treat strings as things has precedent in SKOS-XL
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html
> 
> It's a heavyweight mechanism compared to SKOS (Core), but it does allow
> the string to be described as such. Some example use cases would be to
> attach pronunciations or transliterations.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:29 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [BIBFRAME] bf:Title Was: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data:
> > Identifiers
> >
> > 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