When I run the conversion, I get a top-level bf:Work for the set, and then six bf:contains/bf:Work elements for the individual volumes. In this case, it seems to make sense to model the individual volumes as bf:Work, but will that always be the case? Are catalogers consciously making this kind of semantic distinction when they create enhanced 505 notes? Non-formatted 505 notes are not being modeled as bf:Work, but are mapped to bf:contentsNote.
Also, in the current conversion, the first subfield $g is getting omitted, which throws off the numbering (i.e., the bf:contains/bf:Work below should have <bf:note>1.</bf:note>, not <bf:note>2.</bf:note>:
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>Origens : nos trilhos do café
--</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>Origens : nos trilhos do café --</bf:title>
<bf:note>2.</bf:note>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>Grandes ferrovias : malha ferroviária
--</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>Grandes ferrovias : malha ferroviária --</bf:title>
<bf:note>3.</bf:note>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>Locomotivas e vagões : do vapor ao elétrico
--</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>Locomotivas e vagões : do vapor ao elétrico --</bf:title>
<bf:note>4.</bf:note>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>A conquista do território : paisagens recriadas
--</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>A conquista do território : paisagens recriadas --</bf:title>
<bf:note>5.</bf:note>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>Profissão ferroviário --</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>Profissão ferroviário --</bf:title>
<bf:note>6.</bf:note>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
<bf:contains>
<bf:Work>
<bf:authorizedAccessPoint>De volta aos trilhos : expresso para o
futuro.</bf:authorizedAccessPoint>
<bf:title>De volta aos trilhos : expresso para o futuro.</bf:title>
</bf:Work>
</bf:contains>
Finally, this record contains an 020 field with an ISBN for each volume. Each 020 causes a new bf:hasInstance/bf:Instance element to get generated. However, there is no correlation between these instances and the bf:Work elements generated from the titles in 505 $t. It seems incorrect to assert that each individual volume is an instance of the top-level bf:Work. Shouldn't the instances in this case be mapped to the bf:contains/bf:Work elements? There may not be a reliable way to do this, but with this record, at least, the volume numbers following the ISBNs could be matched to the designators in subfield $g.
Submitted
Currently, titles from an enhanced 505 contents note (subfield $t) are being mapped to
bf:contains/bf:Work
. Subfield $g is being mapped tobf:note
.I have a record for a book set that has six volumes:
When I run the conversion, I get a top-level
bf:Work
for the set, and then sixbf:contains/bf:Work
elements for the individual volumes. In this case, it seems to make sense to model the individual volumes asbf:Work
, but will that always be the case? Are catalogers consciously making this kind of semantic distinction when they create enhanced 505 notes? Non-formatted 505 notes are not being modeled asbf:Work
, but are mapped tobf:contentsNote
.Also, in the current conversion, the first subfield $g is getting omitted, which throws off the numbering (i.e., the
bf:contains/bf:Work
below should have<bf:note>1.</bf:note>
, not<bf:note>2.</bf:note>
:Finally, this record contains an 020 field with an ISBN for each volume. Each 020 causes a new
bf:hasInstance/bf:Instance
element to get generated. However, there is no correlation between these instances and thebf:Work
elements generated from the titles in 505 $t. It seems incorrect to assert that each individual volume is an instance of the top-levelbf:Work
. Shouldn't the instances in this case be mapped to thebf:contains/bf:Work
elements? There may not be a reliable way to do this, but with this record, at least, the volume numbers following the ISBNs could be matched to the designators in subfield $g.