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:
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:
a bf:Work ;
hasTranslation <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):
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.
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.
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]">