Print

Print


Thanks Ray, Kate.

To me, Spine Title is a type of title.... what sort of title is it, it's
the title from the spine.  Clearly, it could only be associated with an
Instance, as a Work does not have a spine. Following the first discussion
point, having bf:SpineTitle establishes a pattern of using URIs to identify
things rather than strings -- in this case it is identifying the type of
title.

Thus the last example (and the ontology) would lose the
variantCharacteristic predicate and the title resource would be a
bf:SpineTitle instead of a bf:VariantTitle.

Further work, in specific communities, could extend the base list of
variants as required without worrying about the ambiguity of different
communities coming up with the same string to use to name different
semantics.

Otherwise, I think the proposal looks excellent!

Rob



On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Bowers, Kate A. <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  Why is the spine not the source of the title, why is it a
> “characteristic”?
>
>
>
> Kate
>
>
>
> *Kate Bowers*
>
> Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
>
> Harvard University Archives
>
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 617.496.2713
>
> 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 *Denenberg, Ray
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 2:33 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Title Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
> Attached, the first of several proposals mentioned in my earlier message.
>
>
>
> Ray
>



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