Giving identities to titles allows you to assert relationships between them, such as translationOf, abbreviationOf, and so forth.
As there has to be a title resource to allow for subtitle to be distinct from the main title, we should follow the "avoid blank nodes" best practice and give them real identity.

Unless titles really are just strings, and then we should use rdfs:label or dc:title with a string literal as the value, but in no possible world is a blank node the best option.


On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 4/23/15 7:18 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
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?

Actually, I think that would be a mistake. Even though there are titles that are the same *string* they name a different thing. That would be like having a single identifier for everyone named Bill Jones. You would be identifying the string, not the resource whose title it is. Note that among published works there are ones with the same title -- but giving them the same identifier would imply that they are the same publication. They aren't.

I see no advantage to giving identifiers to titles. I think it makes sense to leave titles as strings to be read by humans and searched via keyword. They are text for human consumption. If we want to identify resources, a title alone won't do.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305