 |
 |
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