I think that Instance is equivalent to Manifestation, rather than Item in the FRBR model.  The rationale being that HeldItem / HeldMaterial is Item. Thus my mental mapping is:

bf:Work --> (frbr:Work / frbr:Expressions)
bf:Instance --> frbr:Manifestation
(bf:HeldItem / bf:HeldMaterial) --> frbr:Item

Now ... whether something can be both a physical object in the real world AND a conceptual annotation at the same time ... well... that boggles my mind quite a lot, but we should start a new thread if people want to also discuss that :)


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>> 1. Our evidence fragment "Th. Mann" resides on manifestation level, but creators and contributors are work- or expression level elements: Therefore we cannot even think of embedding the bf:creator statement within the arbitrary XML within the bf:responsibilityStatement
>> Bibframe makes bf:creator available for instances (sensibly, it seems to me). Or is the problem to which you are referring the lack of a class corresponding specifically to the notion of a manifestation?
> The SoR to be transcribed is taken from the manifestation, however the RDF statement about creatorship usually resides in a different graph, pertaining to the work stratum (of, say, FRBR). The manifestation resource is linked to the work resource, but here the task would be to link some fragment of the manifestation description with a specific triple of the work description (the text fragment plus some information found elsewhere plus the intellectual activity of the cataloguer culminated in that specific triple - why shouldn't that be documented within the data we create?).

I wonder now whether you're pointing to a specific example of a more general problem: Bibframe's model contemplates works and instances (aka items), but not manifestations (or expressions). Coming from data expressed in one model (say, FRBR) which _does_ possess a richer ontology, how do we re-express relationships in Bibframe that begin as relationships from either works or instances to intermediating classes (or for that matter, between intermediating classes)?

In other words, is this example indirectly a critique of the relatively "flat" Bibframe model?

A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305