Ray, although I don't recall this particular proposal, the BIBFRAME A-V study did make similar recommendations based on their needs. They propose a super-class, bf:Content, as a solution to their need to make use of some bf:Instance properties at a higher level than instance:
"There are several properties already available in BIBFRAME that support the needs of moving image and recorded sound works or events, but these are restricted to the Instance domain. These include bf:duration, bf:soundContent, bf:colorContent, and bf:aspectRatio. By allowing these properties to be used with bf:Content, catalogers can describe the original intention/characteristics of the content, even if that is quite different from the characteristics of an instance in the collection." (p. 42 of that report, on the BIBFRAME web site)
Other such requests can be intuited from some of the literature from non-book catalogers regarding FRBR, where their needs do not divide up the bibliographic universe in the same way that FRBR WEMI does.
On 6/25/15 10:22 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
The issue of carrying Instance information in Items is completely analogous to carrying Work information in Instances, right? Item is a recently introduced concept, but Works and Instances are as old as BIBFRAME. I don’t recall anyone ever raising this issue; why has it never been brought up in the several years since the BIBRAME model was introduced?
-- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600