Cutting the Matrix references... sorry!

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In order to make this [bf:Language] coherent, along with
> > bf:(absorbed/continued/superseded)InPart[By], a Part of a Resource should
> > have its own identity in the same way that an Edition does. It could be
> just a
> > blank node, like so many others, but at least be a node with the
> potential for
> > identity.
> -- I agree 116.3%.

Phew :)

> The long and short is this:  How this has been handled in MARC is less
> than ideal and I agree the current model does not improve on this.
> If /part/ of a (larger) resource is in a different language, then it
> stands to reason that that /part/ should be represented as its own
> Resource, with its own language and which then has a defined relationship
> to the (larger) resource.

Is it as simple as Work bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Work and Instance
bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Instance ?
And then associate the absorbed/continued/superceded and language
relationships with the Work-that-is-the-Part?

This seems like a baby-step that would be easy to make a big difference in
terms of accuracy and clarity of modeling.

> Yes, it may be a pretty meagre Resource initially, but that doesn't make
> it any less a resource /and/ we have at least established something (a
> Resource) about which more can be said, without precluding the possibility
> of re-use.
> There may be exceptions discovered along the way that require some kind of
> special accommodation, but libretti or inserts or other accompanying
> materials can be Resources unto themselves.

Yes, completely agreed. All of the machinery /might/ be appropriate to
reapply to an insert -- it could have a different author, artist, etc etc.
By separating it as a new resource, we save a lot of redundant authorOfPart
and artistOfPart relationships.

Thanks Kevin,


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