Print

Print


One way to think about this might be to ask whether a transliterations or translations are, in fact, separate titles (and therefore deserving of recordation as such) or different "views" of a single title.

Personally, I'm not sure I would like for Bibframe to express an opinion about this kind of question. It seems to me to lie in the domain of cataloging practice and a given decision may require sensitivity to the context of the resource being described. For example, at my institution we have a wealth of material from the Himalayan region. A Tibetan religious manuscript may be named in several forms of Tibetan, several forms of Chinese, and other languages as well. The relationships between these names can be very complex, including different combinations of translation and transliteration and descent as well as arising from different sources at different times.

I would like, as much as possible, for Bibframe to leave decisions about the possible relationships that obtain between them and how they should be expressed in the hands of the expert archivists and catalogers who work with this kind of material locally.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:25 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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