Print

Print


Hi stephen - you’re right, by the current documentation one cannot conclude that a translation is an expression.     We’re in the process of correcting  a few omissions like this;  an updated ontology will be available soon.   

Ray


> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> "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] <mailto:[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/ <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 <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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 1:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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> <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish>
>                              a                             bf:Work ;
> 
>                             hasTranslation        <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench> <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench> .
> 
>  
> 
> and
> 
>  
> 
>       <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench> <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench>
>         a                             bf:Work ;
> 
>       isTranslationOf        <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish> <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> <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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 <tel:+972%202-649-9356>
> Mobile: +972-54-5246298 <tel:+972%2054-524-6298>
> [log in to unmask] <http:[log in to unmask]>
> <image001.jpg> <http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>
> www.exlibrisgroup.com <http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
> m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:(510)%20435-8234>
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:(510)%20984-3600>
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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