Good question, Karen, perhaps I did a bit of hand-waving, so I’ll elaborate.
Right now (pre-proposal) bf:agent has range bf:Agent which is a subclass of bf:Authority and thus the object of bf:agent must be a bf:Authority. So, right now, you can’t say:
rather, there has to be an intermediate node (blank or otherwise, e.g.
bf:agent [ hasAuthority <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> ]
By the proposal, bf:Authority goes away. So what form then does bf:Agent take? The proposal perhaps fails to explicitly spell this out, but the implication is that it would take a form that generalizes bf:Authority, thus:
bf:agent [ identifiedBy <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> ]
but the “direct” form
would not be allowed, IF the range is bf:Agent. If we drop that restriction (i.e. don’t assign a range) then this form could be used.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] role proposal
Ray, can you explain why this doesn't work if the range of bf:agent is bf:Agent? Thanks, kc
On 8/27/15 1:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
And again it depends on how/whether we define a range for bf:agent. If we define the range to be class bf:Agent, then no, we cannot. I think most of us are inclined not to want to restrict the vocabulary in this manner, and to allow such a contraction.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net