Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

On 03/07/2013 18:08, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
<snip>
>
> I was thinking of these standards in the sense of (potentially) having
> one FRBR manifestation URI that could support content-negotiation
> (genericResources-53) to one of many FRBR Item URIs. Such a mechanism
> could even negotiation to FRBR Item URIs are distributed around the
> world behind authentication/authorization mechanisms (OpenURL).
>
</snip>

While I agree that this would be useful, mixing this with the
traditional idea of "Manifestation" may be very confusing, since what we
are talking about here are not differences in the manifestation itself,
but in legal access to a single file. 1 manifestation still equals 1
item and so therefore, it is only natural to ask: what is the use of the
manifestation? It becomes a part with no use, and it can only confuse
matters.

To repeat, it seems to me to be similar to manuscripts, where there are
no manifestations--only items. You can have manifestations only when you
have duplicates, and this is not the case with manuscripts and, I
submit, also with 95%+ of digital resources.

While content negotiation is important, it is a different matter and
seems to be handled much more easily by IP address or other methods than
considering it a matter of bibliographic metadata.  

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html