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!
Kate
Kate Bowers
Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
Harvard University Archives
voice: (617) 384-7787
fax: (617) 495-8011
web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives
Twitter: @k8_bowers
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Folsom
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:50 AM
Kate,
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”.