Print

Print


Thanks, Nate. Can you say whether the BIBFRAME Editor will follow this
pattern as well? I believe the beta version currently outputs a resource
with URI for every entity, including Provider et al.

Tim


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tim, good question. I think it’s a question  of re-use or use-cases. For
> example, what’s the utility of a re-usable Provider node like  “Naperville,
> Ill. : Sourcebooks, c2008.” How many times would that  publication event
> ever be re-used? We should make efforts to turn Naperville, Ill,  into a
> uri pointing to the Place,yes. It would also be nice if there were a uri
> out there for all imprints/publishers/distributors, so we could point to “
> example.org/Sourcebooks” or whatever, but there isn’t , yet, and the data
> isn’t clean enough to actually know what to do with it. So for now we’ve
> just been keeping the data in a node by itself, and trying to wrap multiple
> places, pubs,distributors in separate blocks to facilitate downstream
> cleanup.
>
>
>
> Identifiers would be great to have as uris, but there just aren’t rdf
> resources that resolve them, unless/until we put them  up ourselves. (We do
> have plans to add more of this sort of stuff at id, but we shouldn’t be in
> the business of adding issn resolvers, for example; those are not our
> numbers.)
>
>
>
> Bf:Title being flattened out may be a mistake; I think it should really
> just a blank node, too.  I don’t much like blank nodes, but we need to
> group together the title properties.  Is there a use-case for  having all
> the bf:Works with the title “[Untitled] Photograph 1991.” point to a single
> resource someplace that returns you that string when you(r system)
> reference it?
>
>
>
> Nate
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Nate Trail
>
> Network Development & MARC Standards Office
>
> LS/ABA/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 *Tim Thompson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2015 5:42 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] Blank nodes vs. resources (redux)
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I've been working with the "flat" RDF/XML output from LC's marc2bibframe
> scripts, and I'd like to understand a little better why some things have
> been modeled as blank nodes, whereas others have been presented as separate
> resources.
>
> For example, bf:Provider and bf:Identifier are blank nodes, but bf:Title
> is a separate resource with its own URI. Why not make everything a
> resource? Or is there a good reason for keeping some things as blank nodes,
> in terms of querying, modeling, etc.? I know this ground has been tread
> before, but I'd like to come at it from the perspective of integrating
> newly created BF data with BF data that has been converted from MARC.
> Greater clarity about the way resources are being modeled, in this regard,
> would help facilitate production workflows moving forward.
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> Tim A. Thompson
> Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
> Princeton University Library
>