Thank you all for the clarifications. I wish all this info could be found
in one place.

Joshua Welker
Library Systems and Discovery Coordinator
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022



On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:30 PM Tim Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > Yes, it's completely valid to mix and match in this way — and these two
> > standards address different aspects with the understanding that they
> might be
> > used separately or together.
>
> I think Esmé is correct here (as usual!). I would just caution that it is
> important to take a close look at the ontologies or RDF schemas that define
> these terms in order to convince yourself they are really compatible and,
> if so, at what level.
>
> An ontology (and both PREMIS and BIBFRAME are defined as OWL ontologies)
> may define constraints that, if violated, would cause problems for semantic
> inferencing (not that lots of people in the cultural heritage space are
> doing things with inferencing out there, but that's a separate issue).
>
> For example, looking at the definition of a PREMIS IntellectualEntity (
> http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/premis-3-0-0.rdf), it's not clear to me that
> something could be both a BIBFRAME Work and a PREMIS IntellectualEntity. In
> PREMIS, IntellectualEntity is a subclass of Object, which is defined as a
> "discrete unit of information subject to digital preservation." The notion
> of a Work in BIBFRAME (and the LRM, etc.) is much more nebulous and
> conceptual. It would make more sense to me in a digital preservation
> context--although I'm by no means an expert--to create relationships to a
> BIBFRAME Item, which is the thing that is ultimately being represented by a
> digital surrogate.
>
> All best,
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim A. Thompson
> Discovery Metadata Librarian
> Yale University Library
>