Print

Print


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 02.08.2015 um 16:26 schrieb Karen Coyle:
> 
> 
> On 7/31/15 3:19 PM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>> 
>> We considered the option of including the link to the related
>> series work inside the bf:seriesStatement property. However, this
>> changes the relationship from one between an Instance and its
>> related series, to a relationship between a series statement and
>> its series work.  We thought we needed to retain the relationship
>> between an Instance and its related series.
>> 
> 
> Isn't the series statement just the display form of the
> relationship between the two bibliographic entities? Should it
> really be a thing in itself?
> 
> This is where I think we get hung up in trying to convert from a 
> text-based form of cataloging to a thing and link-based form. What
> used to be a textual statement as a primary way of recording
> information becomes simply the display form of actual things and
> links. You don't need to do both, and it wouldn't make sense really
> to do both -- it would be inefficient and also prone to error.


We'll probably have to do both in even more situations than before
(links becoming more important while the text form still being
indispensable as proof of evidence for many applications),
since the two ways of expressing the fact are complimentary
and by no means full substitutes of each other. Thus it will be
crucial to never lose the connection between the two for a given
instance, i.e. having seemingly independent series "statements"
and series "links".

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iJwEAQECAAYFAlW/OGEACgkQYhMlmJ6W47PGEwP/UqChGZ/LrkoySX9ZSUxjNsk5
Mjk9J6H7c2L5BRjGgMCFebN94Uo9iU/XyEmiCqppfoJ2vbJSOHzPAFjk5uWmud0k
54IB7Uj28SfwLHLWta8geiatyKm/Lf4aShdg1woTbzQtXOghnlB7tAXY8f42QiKo
ax5AxJs7kd3kqqHhlFU=
=4n7l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----