Then it is critical to discussion to clearly talk about bf:thingies as “instances” rather than “resources” or to always refer to a “library resource” or an“rdf resource”.
I know it feels silly, but when context is essential to convey meaning, it’s essential to express it consistently!
Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
Harvard University Archives
voice: (617) 384-7787
fax: (617) 495-8011
Resource has at least two meanings in this thread.
- A library resource from the library collection.
- An RDF resource… "Any IRI or literal denotes something in the world (the "universe of discourse"). These things are called resources. Anything can be a resource, including physical things, documents, abstract concepts, numbers and strings; the term is synonymous with "entity" as it is used in the RDF Semantics specification [RDF11-MT]. The resource denoted by an IRI is called its referent, and the resource denoted by a literal is called its literal value. Literals have datatypes that define the range of possible values, such as strings, numbers, and dates. Special kind of literals, language-tagged strings, denote plain-text strings in a natural language.” Taken from- http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#resources-and-statements
The way I read the BIBFRAME documentation is:
- The bf:Instance is an RDF resource "reflecting an individual, material embodiment of the Work.” (a physical library resource, including digital resources made up of 1’s and 0’s).
- The bf:heldItem is an RDF resource reflecting the abstract concept of “Item holdings information”.