Is one work with a list of languages a valid alternative?

Of course there will be separate instances in different languages.

 

Or… should (must) create separate work per language.

 

Shlomo Sanders

CTO

Tel: +972-2-6499356

Mobile: +972-54-5246298

[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:[log in to unmask]">
www.exlibrisgroup.com

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: 25 January, 2017 01:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more than one language

 

"So Expression is not a core BIBFRAME class, however BIBFRAME does define the property hasExpression,  to indicate that a particular Work is, in the eyes of FRBR, a FRBR Expression of that Work. Property hasTranslation is a subproperty of hasExpression , and so if you declare a  BIBFRAME Work to be a translation, via hasTranslation, you are implicitly declaring it to be an Expression."

 

In the documentation for BF 2.0 that I'm seeing, hasTranslation is a subproperty of hasDerivative, not hasExpression; and hasDerivative is a subproperty of relatedTo.  The property relatedTo has both hasTranslation and hasExpression as subproperties, but they have no immediate relationship, and one couldn't reason that a translation must be an expression. Derivatives in FRBR are generally seen as separate works from their source work, but translations are not.

 

Is that what was intended?

 

Stephen

 

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Karen;

 

a BIBFRAME Work corresponds (roughly) to a FRBR Work or Expression; i.e. a FRBR Expression of a FRBR Work is normally modeled in BIBFRAME as a separate Work.

 

So Expression is not a core BIBFRAME class, however BIBFRAME does define the property hasExpression,  to indicate that a particular Work is, in the eyes of FRBR, a FRBR Expression of that Work. Property hasTranslation is a subproperty of hasExpression , and so if you declare a  BIBFRAME Work to be a translation, via hasTranslation, you are implicitly declaring it to be an Expression.

An individual implementation may choose not to implement as such.  So to your question “Would there be a way in BIBFRAME to model them as the same work?,   Suppose you say….

             <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugust>

                             a                             bf:Work ;

                             bf:language           <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-1/eng> ;

                            hasTranslation        <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugust> .

<http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugust>
                             a                             bf:Work ;
                            bf:language           <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-1/fr> ;
                            isTranslationOf       <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugust> .

…… they are the same work.  However I don’t know if you can get away with that; there are logical inconsistencies and you’d likely get inferencing errors.

Right, the method of making a note won’t buy you much, but I suggested it only as a placeholder, pending reconciliation.

Ray

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 1:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more than one language

 

This is quite a departure from FRBR and RDA in terms of works. In those, translations are the same work, but different expressions. Would there be a way in BIBFRAME to model them as the same work?

As for linking translations, the current method of making a note is not going to yield much, but in the cases where there is a uniform title, that unifies the translations of a work because it uses the same title, not a translated title, for all translations:

"Hamlet. German"

"Hamlet. Italian"

kc

On 1/24/17 7:22 AM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:

The question, I think, comes down to this:  If there is a Work, in a given language – English for example -   and that work gets translated into a different language – French, for example;  are the English and French versions a single Work or separate Works.  (Is this a reasonable reformulation of the question?) 

 

They are two different Works. They can be related to each another via property bf:hasTranslation, and its inverse, bf:translationOf.   So for example English is the original language of Guns of August and there is a French translation:

  

             <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish>

                             a                             bf:Work ;

                            hasTranslation        <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench> .

 

and

 

      <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench>

        a                             bf:Work ;

      isTranslationOf        <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish> .

 

I was hoping to come up with a real-life BIBFRAME example from our conversion, but unfortunately this idea doesn’t work well based on marc records, because although the marc record may tell you that there is a French translation, it doesn’t tell you where it is, and some sort of matching algorithm has to come into play.   We haven’t quite gotten that far yet, which is why I cannot produce a real example yet. 

 

However, as a placeholder, say you have the English (original) and you simply want to express that there is a French translation (but you don’t yet know where):

 

             <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish>

                             a                             bf:Work ;

                            hasTranslation        [rdfs:label “French translation”  ] .

 

Please note that I have only considered the simple case where there is an original, and a translation of the original.   There are possible complicating factors:  There may not be one single “original” language; or there may be, but a particular translation isn’t translated directly from the original but rather from an intermediate translation.   I don’t have answers to these situations.

 

 

Ray

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more than one language

 

Which of the following is valid (either, both…)?

·         If a Work has 2 Instances with different languages then there can be one Work record with 2 Instances and both languages should be in the Work record

·         If there are 2 Instances with different languages then there must be 2 Work records each with one Instance.

 

Shlomo Sanders

CTO

Tel: +972-2-6499356

Mobile: +972-54-5246298

[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:[log in to unmask]">
www.exlibrisgroup.com

 

 

 

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



 

--

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