In my midnight insomnia I realized that there is the issue of volume 
numbers, which are associated with the series but must be described as 
part of the relationship between a published thing and the series. This 
brings us back to needing a node with the series (represented by an 
identifier) and the enumeration on this instance.

bf:mainTitle “International archives of photogrammetry and remote sensing” ;
bf:partNumber “Series IX” ;
bf:partName “History" ;
bf:issn [ a bf:Identifier ;
bf:identifierScheme “issn” ;
bf:identifierValue “0256-1840” ] ;

<instance7> bf:seriesStatement [
bf:series <series 123> ;
bf:seriesNumbering "vol. 3" ] [*]

So the series statement does end up being a blank node as a way to 
combine the series as related work to the individual volume of the 

Is there anything else that is volume-specific? I suppose if one 
includes any transcribed information it would be volume-specific, but it 
would be good if that were coded as such.

Anyway, all of this is a variation on what Joe and Theo proposed, 
separating out the information about the series from the information 
about the instance.

[*] Because it may be useful to do some operations on the volume numbers 
(e.g. calculating if you have all of them, or putting them in order), it 
would be better if there were at least a separate property for series 
volume number, so you could do:
X bf:seriesVolume "3" .
I doubt if seriesVolume could be a simple integer (surely there is a 
series that uses letters or a combination of letters and numbers for its 
volumes), but at least this way some series numbers could be usable for 

On 7/22/15 8:17 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> I agree that we would not use blank nodes for bf:Series; that could be 
> a subclass of bf:Work. There already is a bf:Serial ( 
> ) class.
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:00 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
> 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.
> kc
> On 7/22/15 6:35 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
>     It’s pretty clear that sometimes a series is just a statement and
>     sometimes it can be a work in its’ 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] <mailto:[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]  <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