First, the same name in different languages is something that RDF handles quite well: each string that is used as a label can be given a language code, and you can have an official display form and "see" forms (alternate labels) for each language. It actually is better than what we have today, because RDF was designed for the global web.

As for transcribed forms, those are not the same as the information about the series. Transcribed forms are information about the instance, not the series, and should be treated as separate information. They do NOT identify the series, they describe the instance. In the past, a single string was used to fulfill way too many roles, and often it was not clear what role it was fulfilling. In particular, many strings could be used by a human to find a related entity, but they could not be considered as identifying the entity. We need to keep those functions separate. As I have said before, I think that transcribed data needs to be clearly encoded as such and should not be confused with identification of entities.


On 8/3/15 8:26 AM, Stephen Hearn wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Some series are issued in more than one language, with the series title being represented on each piece in the language of each piece.  When that's the case, the transcribed display form of the series title would be one thing and the form needed for indexing and display of the standard title in user-friendly lists of series titles would be something else. 

If there's an identifier for the series linked to the standard form of the title (and any alternate language variants), noting the relationship between the item and the series identifier as part of a series statement might suffice for access to the standard title; but if not, a cataloger needs to be able to represent both these textual forms of the series title in the bibliographic description.  The transcribed form would be better understood as a property of the piece than as a relationship to the series, and vice versa for the standard title.


On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 8/3/15 2:46 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
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".

Why? Every "thing" in RDF can have display forms -- what is the series statement but a display form of the series information? We should assume that everything that has an identifier also has a display for humans.


Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242

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