There is a need
for both. Cataloging codes, like RDA, require recording
series information, and that is why bb:seriesStatement is
needed. Some libraries (but not all) additionally provide a
link to a related series work, and that is best done, of
course, with an identifier. Neither of these two mechanisms
replaces the other: both are necessary.
Joe
From: Bibliographic Framework
Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:00 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]
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:
http://www.lib.washington.edu/msd/pubcat/ld/uw-series-proposal
Joe Kiegel
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
