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!


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 Bowers

Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards

Harvard University Archives

[log in to unmask]


voice: (617) 384-7787

fax: (617) 495-8011


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.



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