That's great, thank you, we'll send ontology issues there! ________________________________ From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Steven Michael Folsom <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 12:05 PM To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:role question Theo, You can see the open issues here: https://github.com/lcnetdev/bibframe-ontology/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen. From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Theodore Gerontakos <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 3:04 PM To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:role question That would work well (remove domain and range). No I didn't enter a Github issue; you mean at https://github.com/lcnetdev/bfe/ ? I didn't know that was an appropriate place for such an issue. In fact, beside this listserv, I don't know where to raise an ontology issue. --Theo ________________________________ From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:47 AM To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:role question The Profiles Affinity Group has also experimented with using this. Ideally, the domain and range would simply be removed. Have you put in an issue on LC's BF editor github site? Nancy ________________________________ From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Theodore Gerontakos <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:40 AM To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [BIBFRAME] bf:role question In BIBFRAME, the property bf:role is used only with bf:Contribution. We find we want to use bf:role with bf:ProvisionActivity (and its sub-classes) to clarify the roles of agents in the provision activities. Is there any possibility of extending the rdfs:domain to include bf:ProvisionActivity? What we do now: add a note to the provision activity and use bf:provisionActivity/bf:note/rdfs:label to describe the role (with a bf:note/bf:noteType="role"); then we describe the agent of the provisionactivity as a contributor, allowing us to use bf:role and an LC relator IRI as its value. It seems like an awkward solution. --Theo '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Theo Gerontakos Interim Head, Metadata and Cataloging Initiatives University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 276-6209 (cell) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''