 |
 |
That is a good point that it is the participants of the meeting whose products are the proceedings, which would be a composite Work consisting of papers presented at that conference/meeting written by those participants. In this case the conference/meeting functions as an organization that is capable of authorship. I would also argue that a conference/meeting becomes the creator of the proceedings because cataloging rules tell us that we make that meeting name the entry point, and thus it is considered the author. And that is because the designers of cataloging rules thought that people would be looking for the proceedings of a conference under the name of the conference. A conference is a group of people getting together on a particular topic that takes place in time and space (making it, in my opinion, an event). An Event may or may not be realized as an Instance (i.e. affixed to a carrier). In the case of the conference proceedings it does get affixed because the papers from it get published, as the reenactment of a battle might be affixed to a moving image carrier or the bird singing affixed to a sound carrier. Rebecca Rebecca Squire Guenther 215 W. 75th St. Apt. 16H New York, NY 10023 703-298-0157 [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > On Jan 20, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Gordon, Bruce J. <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > In as much as the participants of the meeting whose product is the proceedings are agents, yes. In that case the "ALA 2016" is an agent like a corporation is an agent or an orchestra is an agent, but at that point it is not the event we are talking about but the agent, the body of participants. It is an agent who performed an event that happens to have the same name. As long as context provides disambiguation, that should work but I don't know how that would go exactly. > > Best, > > -Bruce > > Bruce J. Gordon > Audio Engineer > Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library > Harvard University > Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 > U.S.A > tel. +1(617) 495-1241 > fax +1(617) 496-4636 > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Nevermind “publisher”, “ALA 2016” would be the “creator” of the proceedings, right? >> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Gordon, Bruce J. >> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:49 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0 >> >> I don't know about the ALA meeting, but the publisher of the proceedings of a conference is not the conference but the organization that holds the conference or some other entity responsible for publishing. An event isn't an agent and can't publish anything, but there are fruits of that event that can be published by an agent. There seem to have been shortcuts taken that end up conflating meanings perhaps for the sake of expediency or brevity, or the lack of a better place in which to describe. >> >> Best, >> >> -Bruce >> >> Bruce J. Gordon >> Audio Engineer >> Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library >> Harvard University >> Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 >> U.S.A >> tel. +1(617) 495-1241 >> fax +1(617) 496-4636 >> >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Steven Folsom <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Is "ALA Midwinter 2016" a publisher? >> >> Or is ALA (or some contracted service) the Publisher of the Proceedings of the ALA Midwinter 2016 Meeting? >> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM >> To: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] SV: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0 >> >> Meetings as Agent and Meetings as Events: maybe they can be both, and we’re conflating them because they have the same label? >> >> “ALA Midwinter 2016” is both a publisher and an event, and probably should have two uris, one as a madsrdf:Meeting and one as a bf:Event , each with different properties describing the different aspects of the same idea. >> >> Nate >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Nate Trail >> Network Development & MARC Standards Office >> LS/ABA/NDMSO >> LA308, Mail Stop 4402 >> Library of Congress >> Washington DC 20540 >> >> >> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Steven Folsom >> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:20 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] SV: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0 >> >> This has been a really interesting thread to monitor. Some reactions to various discussions: >> >> 1.) I think it’s worth clarifying what happens with subclassing. (I think everyone participating understands this, but it might help tease out some problematic terms.) If one class is asserted as a subclass of another, every instance of the former is always an instance of the latter. E.g. >> >> If: ex:Meeting rdfs:subclassOf ex:Event . >> >> Then this statement: <Some Meeting> a ex:Meeting . >> >> *Always* entails: <Some Meeting> a ex:Event . [Perhaps this is what was originally meant by hierarchies are “static”? Totally agree that in RDF something can exist in multiple hierarchies, but subclasses aren’t for "sometimes situations”.] >> >> 2.) Regardless of historic practice, I’m not sure I would want a Meeting to be a subclass of Agent. It’s more fitting for Meetings be treated as Events that Agents participate in. >> >> 3.) Because bf:Work and bf:Event are not (to my knowledge) asserted to be disjoint, there is nothing formal stopping us for asserting that something is both a bf:Work and bf:Event when it is the case (e.g. the performances that Tim alluded to). Depending on the Event and its relationships to other entities, it may or not BE a Work. It may or may not generate/depict/be the subject of a Work. What I’m trying to say is that because there will be so many ways we will want to refer to bf:Event they shouldn’t be pigeonholed, but there may be some Event types that we want to treat always as works (e.g. Performances). >> >> 4.) The points I made about Works/Events above apply for Contributions and Provisions and Events. I could see a case where we want to say the “event” represented as an AuthorContribution is the subject of a book. Or occasionally wanting to use schema:Event properties (I believe suggested by Amanda) to better describe a Contribution. >> >> 5.) I too, don’t understand what the Content class adds. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 11:33 AM >> To: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] SV: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0 >> >> >> >> On 1/20/16 3:25 AM, Oddrun Ohren wrote: >> Thanks Ray Denenberg for your clarifications! It might well be that life-cycle events are best kept separate from events as entities described or captured in works. >> However, I still think that bf:Content (or bf:EventContent) is unnecessary, and I hope you BIBFRAME 2.0 developers will come round to the same way of thinking J. >> >> (Concerning examples of events modeled as works, I think Tim Thompson provided several good examples. Referring to the draft proposal, perhaps the battle re-enactment event may be considered a work) >> >> IMHO one should always think long and hard before solving any need for increased granularity by subclassing existing classes. Class hierarchies are static structures, and should express fairly stable knowledge. Therefore, I am wondering if you plan to do something about the bf:Work class and its subclassing into media specific sub-classes in BIBFRAME 2.0? As far as I can see, none of the Work subclasses has additional properties (compared to Work), a fact which in itself rather defeats the purpose of subclassing. A more flexible solution would be to introduce a property “type” or similar to Work, and offer a controlled vocabulary of work types as potential value set. A work type vocabulary would at any rate be easier to maintain through changing media types than would a set of subclasses. Moreover, it will then be possible to use other type vocabularies in domains where these are more relevant than the “recommended” one. >> >> It so happens that I just did a short blog post on subclassing Work, albeit related to FRBR but possibly valid also for BIBFRAME. >> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2016/01/sub-types-in-frbr.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__kcoyle.blogspot.com_2016_01_sub-2Dtypes-2Din-2Dfrbr.html&d=CwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=96Yl7NayWcMu7tyqDmXW25XSKg4bTG0oZW8dP5LX1wU&m=DEbn9pYQwcNGJ8XtoP1klVtcsRk6bucK0yE6KQfLf7A&s=t09CSqKb5uRz6PJVAHOJE8uwBTgOfmPFKCxvYpBI7lc&e=> >> There are indeed additional properties, they just haven't been singled out as such. Any property, like "bf:musicKey" is a de facto indicator of a sub-type (aka sub-class). BIBFRAME has a number of properties whose names begin with "cartographic..." and others that begin with "music..." So the type-specific properties exist they just haven't been organized as such (something which might be useful for folks cataloging in those areas). >> >> I disagree that subclassing is static -- at least not in RDF. Any subject can be an instance of more than one class, and classes only have impact when operated upon, as in querying. It is my understanding that in RDF it is very convenient to operate on data using classes, much more so than indicating types using values. So there may be a practical reason for sub-typing, but it doesn't have to impose limitations, AFAIK. Anyway, it's worth thinking about. >> >> Note also that some non-library implementations of FRBR have made use of sub-typing of WEM, some even quite extensively: >> http://speroni.web.cs.unibo.it/cgi-bin/lode/req.py?req=http:/purl.org/spar/fabio <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__speroni.web.cs.unibo.it_cgi-2Dbin_lode_req.py-3Freq-3Dhttp-3A_purl.org_spar_fabio&d=CwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=96Yl7NayWcMu7tyqDmXW25XSKg4bTG0oZW8dP5LX1wU&m=DEbn9pYQwcNGJ8XtoP1klVtcsRk6bucK0yE6KQfLf7A&s=xmUnmqZcfeCLxZK4FhKE3jW1g5N3ag5oUzas8icwMqo&e=> >> >> The frbrCore vocabulary introduced just a few sample subtypes: >> http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__vocab.org_frbr_core.html&d=CwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=96Yl7NayWcMu7tyqDmXW25XSKg4bTG0oZW8dP5LX1wU&m=DEbn9pYQwcNGJ8XtoP1klVtcsRk6bucK0yE6KQfLf7A&s=DRxSw9D5BvcyD37ggmTgN3D8iGVgYw9H1tm_FxGnCaM&e=> >> >> kc >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Oddrun Pauline Ohren >> >> Fra: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] På vegne av Denenberg, Ray >> Sendt: 19. januar 2016 20:13 >> Til: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Emne: Re: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0 >> >> > From: Oddrun Ohren >> > • Not being sure how explicitly point *1.c*of the proposal is meant, I’d just like >> > to point out that events may play other roles than being the *subject* of some >> > work, >> >> The line "A bf:Event will be described in the same manner as other BIBFRAME Subject Types.." is poorly worded (my fault). Probably better would be: "An event will be described in the same manner as other external resources." >> For example, a person. While a bf:Person is a BIBFRAME resource, it consists of simply a label, and a link to an external description of the person (a MADS description, FOAF, VIAF, etc.). That's really all that that was trying to say: the concept of a bf:Event relies on the availability of an external description of that event. (Except that for the event, there may be some basic properties besides just the label within the BIBFRAME resource, for example date and time, but for any additional description there will have to be an external resource describing the event.) >> >> >> it might be useful to >> > represent life-cycle events of a work (launching, publication, recording) >> > explicitly in some cases. At any rate we should take care that the Event class is >> > not modelled in such a way that one specific role is assumed. >> Event, as we currently envision it to be modeled, will not include these life-cycle events, we plan to model these differently. Tentatively, there will be a property with name something like bf:originationActivity and class bf:OriginationActivity, with subclasses like bf:Publication, bf:Distribution, and so on, and each of these will have properties like agent, date, place. >> >> >> > I am not >> > able to see what bf:Content contributes other than extra >> > (unnecessary) complexity… o Firstly, it is problematic to constrain something as >> > general-sounding as Content to be a capture of an Event. >> We are currently considering changing the name to EventContent. >> >> > o Secondly, if bf:depicts/bf:captures are defined as properties of both Work and >> > Event (like their parent bf:subject) with expected value *any resource* >> > (instances of any BIBFRAME class, including Work), there should be no need for >> > bf:Content. This way, bf:depicts/bf:captures could also be used to represent the >> > fact that some works capture other works (e.g. photographs of paintings). >> > o Lastly, seeing that the existing subclasses of Work are more or less disjunct, >> > bf:Content will create confusion, as it clearly overlaps several of the existing >> > subclasses. >> These are good points and we will need to discuss them. >> >> >> > It will also be possible to represent >> > events as a work where appropriate, without losing the possibility to express >> > information about capturing >> Do you have an example of an Event that could be modelled as a Work? >> >> >> Thanks much for your comments and suggestions. >> >> Ray >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__kcoyle.net&d=CwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=96Yl7NayWcMu7tyqDmXW25XSKg4bTG0oZW8dP5LX1wU&m=DEbn9pYQwcNGJ8XtoP1klVtcsRk6bucK0yE6KQfLf7A&s=Zj4o607JRUBgOoESo47CyrbGP_UsyAeBby7EakqgH4M&e=> >> m: +1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >