 |
 |
On Dec 10, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Josh Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> I would agree that PREMIS views resources from a very different perspective >> — it really concerns itself only with the digital preservation aspects of >> your content. The only overlap is in things like premis:IntellectualEntity >> and premis:Representation, which are probably the things you would describe >> with BIBFRAME. > > > Its the overlap that concerns me. Is it valid for me to describe provenance > using PREMIS but then to point to a BIBFRAME entity rather than a PREMIS > entity? 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. The implementation may vary depending on the technologies you're using. In RDF, there's no reason why an entity couldn't be both a BIBFRAME Work and a PREMIS IntellectualEntity at the same time. In a relational database or other systems, you might model a single entity that combined both aspects in a single table/entity. But depending on how you model, you might have separate tables/entities/etc. for the two different aspects, but you could link between them to represent the fact that they represent the same thing. e.g., you could one RDF description of the BIBFRAME Work, and a separate description of the PREMIS IntellectualEntity, and use owl:sameAs or skos:exactMatch to link between them. -Esmé