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 bf:(absorbed/continued/superseded)InPart[By], a Part of a Resource should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
-- I agree 116.3%.
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.
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.