Jeff, 

Great question. Linked data certainly works better with more atomic things. 

There are arguments made that there is semantics in the order of pre-coordinated headings. If that’s truly the case, then the whole of the pre-coordinated heading refers to a distinct concept/entity and should have its own URI. Still, it’s been my experience that any semantics in the order of pre-coordinated heading is lost because of inconsistent application of that order. The URIs for the subdivisions are most useful as a heading maintenance strategy (when we need to update the subdivision label), not necessarily for something to point to on their own as concepts. 

Re: the Poetry URI discussion, If we’re talking about concepts like Poetry, it would be best if they were SKOS concepts that could be referred to in multiple scenarios; the general concept of Poetry as the genre of a work or the subject of the work (*of* Poetry *or* about Poetry, *but* still Poetry). This would be much like when we refer to the same Person with different relationships to Works (*by* or *about* a person). We don’t need different entities if we’re talking about the same thing.

Also, It doesn’t make a lot of sense in linked data to say things only exist as subjects. Any thing can be the subject of a work, but it can be discussed differently in other scenarios.

Thanks,
Steven

————
Steven Folsom
Metadata Strategist and Standards Advocate
Cornell University Library


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:40 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Categories--Genre/Form

This makes me wonder if/how the notion of "subdivision" transitions to a linked data universe. Do they factor out?

On Nov 12, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Please note also that the URI http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh9900167 is for the LCSH form subdivision authority record, not the LCSH heading Poetry.  The URI for that is http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85103704.   It would still be best to use the record from LCGFT for a form/genre term.  

Adam

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

_____________________________
From: Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Categories--Genre/Form
To: <[log in to unmask]>


Nancy - I take your point, but strictly speaking, If you dereference the URI:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh99001678
(and note that the example has a slight error, the .html should have been omitted)
and get RDF returned:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh99001678.rdf

note that it is a madsrdf:GenreForm. (As opposed to a madsrdf:Topic. MADS doesn't know about subjects --topics, but not subjects).

Granted, the URI:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh99001678
makes it seem to be a subject.

Ray


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Lorimer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 6:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] Categories--Genre/Form
>
> A short comment on Example 4 of Categories.
>
> It would make more sense here to use the URI for the genre/form term from
> LCGFT (the genre/form thesaurus), rather than the subject heading URL from
> LCSH.
>
> Nancy
>
> --
> Nancy Lorimer
> Head, Metadata Dept
> Stanford University Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
> 650-725-8819