Print

Print


I could believe that, depending of the nature of the HeldMaterials that aren't also HeldItems.

Jeff

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> “that wouldn’t be a subclass relationship between the two”
>  
> Off the top of my head (and I’ll look closely at it again) HeldItem may use any property of HeldMaterial, and there are additional properties defined for HeldItem (not available in general to HeldMaterial).  So we see HeldItem as a subclass of HeldMaterial.   --Ray
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotations
>  
> Well, maybe I did that too fast. As described, that wouldn’t be a subclass relationship between the two. That quibble aside, though, I like the classes.
>  
> Jeff
>  
> From: Young,Jeff (OR) 
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: BIBFRAME Annotations
>  
> +1
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trail, Nate
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotations
>  
> Jeff, I think we’re modeling HeldMaterial on the notion of “holdings” plural, so you can say something about where a whole set of things is, without necessarily naming each individual one. That helps with serials, but having HeldItem allows us to be granular down to a single one (in a set or not).
> Nate
> -----------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> LA308, Mail Stop 4402
> Library of Congress
> Washington DC 20540
>  
>  
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotations
>  
> Ray,
>  
> Separating holdings from annotations makes great sense to me. For example, the book sitting on my shelf is a bf:HeldItem. I can literally hold it in my hand.
>  
> Is the bf:HeldMaterial superclass intended to extend that set to cover non-physical materials, like an e-book? (I’m willing to believe those are within the bf:HeldItems set too, depending on how the term is defined). Or perhaps bf:HeldMaterial is intended in a traditional sense of “holdings” where we know a specific library has 3 copies in their inventory, but those copies haven’t been clearly identified yet?
>  
> Jeff
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotations
>  
> Holdings:  We are seriously considering suggestions to abandon the attempt to model holdings as annotations, and to instead define bf:HeldMaterial as a subclass of bf:Resource (and bf:HeldItem a subclass of bf:HeldMaterial).    It is likely that this is the direction we will take.
>