 |
 |
Arthur Koestler addressed this issue more generally in his treatment of knowledge and nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus:_A_Summing_Up A key point for Koestler was that in complex hierarchical systems, freedom of action at one level is achieved by restraining actions at levels below it. ** If we want catalogers to define title relations etc. in a fashion that best suits -> them, this imposes technical requirements that may chafe designers (with their *own* notions of freedom of action) in the next level "down." ** If we want to assert anything about anything we have already asserted about anything - which is where the concept of Provenance eventually takes us - it would impose additional requirements on application designers who don't have access to a global mechanism which would not have - until now - seen much use. Think about auditing functions in an enterprise RDBMS. Ron Murray On 7/25/14 12:58 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >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