Stephen,

I've looked at Karen Coyle's examples in the past. They are extremely
helpful for figuring out how to structure the BIBFRAME record, but my
question is more about how the BIBFRAME model interfaces with the semantic
web as a whole. As you mentioned, Karen's examples, like the LC examples
Nate mentioned, have both Work and Instance objects at the top level. To my
(limited) understanding, that makes them suitable for ingestion into a
local system for indexing but not necessarily as URI endpoints. For
example, if I were to reference http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/sr.rdf.xml in
another RDF document, how would an application know if I am referencing the
Work or the Instance?

Joshua Welker
Information Technology Librarian
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022


On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM, McDonald, Stephen <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Karen Coyle has some examples on her page:  http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/.
> Your option #2 appears to be similar to the output in her examples,
> although her examples do not include the Item level.  You can also find
> conversion programs on the BibFrame website which will let you convert MARC
> records and see what they look like in BibFrame RDF/XML.
>
>                                                 Steve McDonald
>                                                 [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Josh Welker
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
>
> I guess I am trying to figure out what the well-defined view looks like. I
> can't find examples that contain Work, Instance, and Item within the same
> RDF document at the same URI. In fact, the examples section on the LC
> BIBFRAME 2.0 website is blank, and the links for BIBFRAME 1.0 are all dead.
> I certainly am not trying to reinvent anything, which is why I am posting
> here.
>
> Joshua Welker
> Information Technology Librarian
> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> University of Central Missouri
> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> JCKL 2260
> 660.543.8022
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, McDonald, Stephen <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > BibFrame already has an RDF view which is well-defined.  Are you
> > trying to come up with your own RDF model for BibFrame data?
> >
> >                                         Steve McDonald
> >                                         [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Josh Welker
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:28 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a question about how to model a resource expressed in BIBFRAME.
> > We are digitizing some unique collections. Ideally, I'd like to have
> > one URI like http://example.org/myuri that returns one RDF document
> > containing data about the Work, the Instance, and the Item. There are
> > two ways I could do
> > this:
> >
> > 1. Use Work as the parent type and include the Instance as a child
> > blank node using the Work.expressionOf property, and then include the
> > Item as a second-level child node using the Instance.hasItem property.
> Example:
> >
> > bf:Work:
> >   bf:title: [title node here]
> >   bf:hasInstance:
> >     bf:Instance:
> >       bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
> >       bf:hasItem:
> >         bf:Item:
> >           bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
> >
> >
> > 2. Use some parent container class like rdf:Description and include
> > the Work, Instance, and item as immediate children blank nodes of that
> > container. Example:
> >
> > rdf:Description:
> >   bf:Work:
> >     bf:title: [title node here]
> >   bf:Instance:
> >     bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
> >   bf:Item
> >     bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
> >
> >
> > 3. If neither 1 nor 2 are acceptable, I could have separate URI
> > endpoints for the Work, Instance, and Item. This has the advantage of
> > using less blank nodes:
> >
> > http://example.org/myuri_Work
> > http://example.org/myuri_Instance
> > http://example.org/myuri_Item
> >
> > I really prefer option 3 the least, but I am very uncertain between 1
> > and 2. Thoughts on which is best practice? If 2, what should I use as
> > the container class? And in any case, how much should I worry about
> > the proliferation of blank nodes?
> >
> > Joshua Welker
> > Information Technology Librarian
> > James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> > University of Central Missouri
> > Warrensburg, MO 64093
> > JCKL 2260
> > 660.543.8022
> >
>