My dilemma is that I can't understand (as a human, and it may be even more difficult for a machine) what the admin metadata modifies. So, in this example:

a bf:Instance ;
  bf:title rdfs:label “Medical history” ;
  bf:title [a       bf:AbbreviatedTitle ;
             rdfs:label “Med Hist” ; 
             bf:adminMetadata [
                   a bf:AdminMetadata ;
  <>] ] ;...

what is the  <> the source of? I'm guessing it's the source of the value of rdfs:label. Is that the case? If that is the case, then a SKOS-like solution (and analogous to one used frequently in BIBFRAME, e.g. for titles) would be to make the label into a THING that the adminMetadata can address.

Similarly, in the ISSN example:

    [ a bf:Issn ;
     rdf:value “2168-7633” ;
        [ a bf:AdminMetadata ;
        bf:assigner "United States" ] ] ;

with the "bf:assigner 'United States'" it is the rdf:value that has an assigned "United States", not the bf:identifiiedBy. This can be expressed in RDF.

My question is: is it always clear what in the graph the adminMetadata refers to? I fear that is not the case, but more use case would be needed to test that out.


On 1/5/16 12:44 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hi Tim –Your point is completely valid. We recognize that the solution isn’t perfect but it does serve the desired purpose, to isolate administrative and provenance metadata, even though technically the admin metadata is still a property of the resource, which in a perfect solution, it would not be.


We settled on this approach after examining alternative approaches that would have achieved this secondary objective, for example, reification, and VOID.

We had been advised by a number of RDF experts to avoid reification because it is complex and difficult to implement.  We chose not to use VoID for a number of reasons; one, because it seems to be overkill for our purpose, and second, because as far as we can tell it is not a well-accepted nor vetted technology.


We want to move forward with BIBFRAME 2.0 using simple approaches where possible, and we chose this simple approach with the idea that it is a temporary solution to the problem, pending a stable, implementable, and well-adopted solution.




Ray Denenberg

Library of Congress



From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Thompson
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Administrative Metadata proposal


Hello, happy 2016 to all.

I've had a lingering question about the BF 2.0 Admin Metadata proposal[1]. It seems to take a step in the right direction, in that it makes admin metadata easier to isolate, but in the end I don't see how it is conceptually any different from the BF 1.0 approach.

The property bf:adminMetadata is still a property of the description of a resource, not of the resource itself, and as a wise man once wrote, "The same URI cannot identify both a document that describes the resource and the resource itself."

This becomes more apparent when the resource being described is, for example, a person, rather than an abstraction like bf:Instance.


    a bf:Person ;

    rdfs:label "Rineer, A. Hunter (Amos Hunter),  -1985" ;

    bf:adminMetadata [

        a bf:AdminMetadata ;

        bf:changeDate "2009-09-28T18:43"

    ] .

It's not the RWO that has admin metadata, but <>, the authority record that describes the real person.


Wouldn't it be more coherent to recommend that separate URIs be used for RWOs and the documents that describe them, as exemplified by the hash URI above?




Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library

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