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 bf:(absorbed/continued/superseded)InPart[By], a Part of a Resource should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And then associate the absorbed/continued/superceded and language relationships with the Work-that-is-the-Part?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