Nate, I buy that as long as there are only two options:

1. series statement that is a plain string
2. series entity with an identifier

It makes little sense to create a blank node when an identity can be 
created. True, there will not be authoritative identifiers for all (or 
even most?) series, but merging can take place over time until most 
series have a useful identifier.

The bottom line is that there is no reason not to identify series where 
one can.


On 7/22/15 6:35 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> Itís pretty clear that sometimes a series is just a statement and 
> sometimes it can be a work in itsí own right, so we need both 
> bf:seriesStatement and bf:series/bf:Work to accommodate both.
> Nate
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:39 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
> 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 
> 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) (my take: treat them as entities and 
> give them an ID)
> 2. at what "level" to link a series to a bf:Instance (the bf:Work for 
> the series?)
> 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. Perhaps this has 
> already been resolved in how serials are handled in BIBFRAME, though. 
> Hopefully someone can weigh in on that.
> kc
> On 7/20/15 10:33 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>     Series are complex and need a more detailed treatment than has
>     been provided to date.  Theo Gerontakos and I have written a
>     proposal with a way to handle them.  It is attached, and also
>     available at:
>     Joe Kiegel
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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