Item - Service modelling

[cKlee]

What model should be used ...
1.

$alicecopies
    daia:availableFor (
        [
            a dso:Presentation ;
            gr:hasStockKeepingUnit "HB 17 Rg 500" ;
            service:providedBy <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a> ;
            gr:availableAtOrFrom [
                a gr:Location ;
                gr:name "Leesesaal" ;
                org:siteOf <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a>
            ]
        ] [
            dso:Loan ;
            gr:hasStockKeepingUnit "Zsn 70488" ;
            service:providedBy <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a> ;
        ]
    ) .

or

$alicecopies 
    bf:HeldMaterial ;
    dct:hasPart (
        [
            a bf:HeldItem ;
            bf:shelfMark "HB 17 Rg 500" ;
            daia:availableFor [
                a dso:Presentation ;
                service:providedBy <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a> ;
                gr:availableAtOrFrom [
                    a gr:Location ;
                    gr:name "Lesesaal" ;
                    org:siteOf <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a>
                ]
            ]
        ] [
            a bf:HeldItem ;
            bf:shelfMark "Zsn 70488" ;
            daia:availableFor [
                dso:Loan ;
                service:providedBy <http://ld.zdb-services.de/resource/organisations/DE-1a> ;
            ]
        ]
    ) .

1 is more compact, but 2 is more clear about items as part of the holding. 2 is more open to BIBFRAME (using bf:shelfMark not gr:hasStockKeepingUnit or schema:sku).

[nichtich]

I don't fully get the difference: option 2 seems to be aligned with BIBFRAME, but the question is more how the resource with label "HB 17 Rg 500" and "Zsn 70488" refer to each other: comparable items of one document or different parts. The first case covers the assumption of comparable items of one document but the second could also be modified this way. I think the property dct:hasPart is either wrong in option 2 or it should also occur in option 1 like this:

$alicecopies dct:hasPart [ daia:availableFor [ a dso:Presentation ] ] .
$alicecopies dct:hasPart [ daia:availableFor [ a dso:Loan ] ].

If "HB 17 Rg 500" and "Zsn 70488" refer to the same physical item them dct:hasPart is wrong.

[cKlee]

If "HB 17 Rg 500" and "Zsn 70488" refer to the same physical item them dct:hasPart is wrong.

They do not refer to the same physical item. In this case "HB 17 Rg 500" refers to a set of physical items and "Zsn 70488" to another. Assuming bf:HeldItem does not refer only to a single physical item.

Option 1 can not be used with Bibframe but option 2 can. I used dct:hasPart in absence of a Bibframe property bf:component (inverse property of bf:componentOf).

I ask this question because of the usage of gr:hasStockKeepingUnit or schema:sku is quite vague. And just imagine I want to add another service to the "Zsn 70488" part. With option 1 this get very confusing. With option 2 it is much clearer:

$holding part/component $item1 .
$item1 label/shelfMark "Zsn 70488" .
$item1 hasService $service1 .
$item1 hasService $service2 .

This way gr:hasStockKeepingUnit and schema:sku can be erased from the ontology.