Print

Print


Barbara (and Eric) - This is what I meant about it being a difficult 
issue to determine how to link a series and its individuals. I do like 
the "memberOf" concept because it is different from "partOf" -- to whit:

1. partOf
  -- e.g. a chapter is part of a book of essays. Both the chapter and 
the book have content (bf:Work) and carrier (bf:Instance). This is 
easier to imagine if you think of a book of essays, where the chapters 
can stand alone.

2. memberOf
  --e.g. a monograph in a series, or an article in a journal. The series 
and the journal can be described as bf:Works, but creators, work titles 
and subjects. However, there is no bf:Instance that "manifests" that 
work, and therefore there's nothing to be a part of. Instead, what is 
manifested is individual works that are *members of* that work.

Using the logic of FRBR aggregates[1], in #1 there is an aggregate work 
(the book of essays), plus a work for each part. Plus each has an 
expression and a manifestation. The question then becomes whether the 
individual essay is a part of the aggregate work, or a part of the 
frbr:expression or a part of the frbr:manifestation, or is a part of all 
of them.[2] In #2, as Barbara says, the member work may not always be a 
member of that work, so the link that seems most logical would be 
between the bf:Instance (? frbr:expression or frbr:manifestation?) of 
the monograph and the bf:Work of the series.

After all of this, though, the best question to ask may be: does it 
matter, and if so, when/how does it matter how the relationship is 
linked? To answer that will probably require a study of cases, and I'm 
sure that the cataloging community can provide a wide variety of cases 
to inform such a study. In the end, though, it is possible that forcing 
catalogers to make subtle distinctions between types of 
part/whole/member relationships is not going to yield better user 
service. This then becomes an argument for a solution that is not 
sensitive to the division of bibliographic entities into works and 
instances.

kc
[1] http://www.ifla.org/node/923
[2] per Wiesenmuller: 
https://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/

On 7/22/15 7:10 AM, Bushman, Barbara (NIH/NLM) [E] wrote:
>
> On the whole I agree we need both the ability to record a series 
> statement and to consider series as its own entity related to the 
> thing being cataloged, I do have one comment about Eric’s statement.
>
> From a visibility use-case perspective, the current approach we’re 
> taking is to define a Series as a Collection (of Works). As 
> Collections are a subClass of Work, Series can have members which are 
> other Series. The relationship “memberOf” associates Works as part of 
> a Series (Collection). The topology (as illustrative above by clicking 
> around and following your nose) is pretty interesting and this helps 
> raise the visibility of these resources.
>
> This approach again assumes (like RDA) that the series relationship is 
> work to work which is not always the case. A particular instance of  a 
> work may be in series while another instance of that same work is not 
> in a series or in a different series.  Ideally I think that we would 
> want to be able to have a Collection as a subclass of instance or even 
> the more general Resource so we could relate at whatever level is 
> appropriate.
>
> Barbara
>
> __________________________________________________
> Barbara Bushman
> Assistant Head
>
> Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
> National Library of Medicine
> 8600 Rockville Pike
> Building 38, Room 1N13
> Bethesda, MD 20894
> 301-496-7135
> 301-402-1211 (fax)
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *From:*Eric Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:16 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
>
>     On Jul 21, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Joe and Theo,
>
>     This is clearly a well-thought out bit of work. I assume that the
>     blank node solution is viable, but I wonder if you contemplated
>     another possibility: that the series is a bibliographic entity on
>     its own that has a relationship with monograph? This would make
>     sense given that:
>      - a series is a work in its own right
>      - there can be catalog entries for the series itself
>      - some series have authority records
>
>     The advantage of this solution is that it identifies a series with
>     a persistent identifier that would allow one to link all members
>     of the series, e.g. to show a list of monographs in the series.
>
> The following are examples of the kind of modeling Karen is 
> describing.  Series as a typed resource with persistent identifiers 
> that would allow one to link all of its members (e.g. to show a list 
> of monographs in the series).
>
> - http://labs.libhub.org/worthingtonlib/resource/q1-0LjxD/
>
> - http://labs.libhub.org/denverpl/resource/-xJPFP-c/
>
> - http://labs.libhub.org/anythink/resource/_WKi-go9/
>
> For those interested, the raw data of the first Series can be 
> extracted from the RDFa of the page and seen here:
>
> - 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flabs.libhub.org%2Fworthingtonlib%2Fresource%2Fq1-0LjxD%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false 
> <http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://labs.libhub.org/worthingtonlib/resource/q1-0LjxD/&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false>
>
> These Series are materialized from collections of MARC records that 
> share MARC 830 properties. While there is certainly more testing to 
> do, I continue to be impressed how well existing MARC records map to 
> this paticular linked data pattern.
>
>
>
> The disadvantage is that it has to solve these problems:
> 1. what to do with series that usually do not get authority control 
> (e.g. the publishers' series)
>
> This is not an issue of identifiers but a general one of determining 
> when things are the same and when they’re not.
>
>
>
> (my take: treat them as entities and give them an ID)
>
> Agreed.  And the ability to give these resources identifiers at the 
> granularity your describing provides a basis for more collaborative, 
> value-add curation going forward.
>
>     2. at what "level" to link a series to a bf:Instance (the bf:Work
>     for the series?)
>
> These questions always fall back “it depends” and benefits from 
> concrete use cases.
>
>     The #2 question there is one that is even more complex with FRBR,
>     but is true for all multi-entity bibliographic models, which is
>     that bibliographic relationships need to be made between entities
>     and it isn't always clear which entities are appropriate for the
>     relationship. In this case, the series as a bf:Work is manifested
>     as a group of bf:Instance's with a "partOf" relationship. There's
>     no single publication that is the bf:Instance of the series.
>
> From a visibility use-case perspective, the current approach we’re 
> taking is to define a Series as a Collection (of Works). As 
> Collections are a subClass of Work, Series can have members which are 
> other Series. The relationship “memberOf” associates Works as part of 
> a Series (Collection). The topology (as illustrative above by clicking 
> around and following your nose) is pretty interesting and this helps 
> raise the visibility of these resources.
>
> Joe and Theo’s suggestion of “series” (as partOf refinement) is a 
> further refinement of “memberOf” but that level of specificity may be 
> less important once one treats Series as a typed resource.  That said, 
> their document is good analysis and, as this is such a complex issue, 
> more thought,  experimentation and exploration is certainly required.
>
> --
> Eric Miller
> President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
> http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229 <tel:+1.617.395.0229>
>

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