I don't think we've helped Rob, so I'm going to hazard a suggestion, for
On 1/13/15 3:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> My objections are:
> 1. Annotation is not an appropriate base class for this, regardless of
> whether it's a record or a real world object.
> This is my primary concern. The thing with a barcode is not "about"
> the Instance. There's no comment or body of the thing with the barcode.
Create a third "circle" in the bibliographic area for curated "Item".
This could be physical or digital. Every "thing" will be represented by
an Item. This will essentially be the MARC Holdings Record. For each
item curated by the library there will be:
Item-level bibliographic information - bindings, provenance, special
Item-level preservation information
Identification of the holding library
Additional location information ("Alcove B")
Item location number (call number)
Item inventory identifier
[add what I left out]
If you have 2 copies, you have two of these Item graphs.
Complication I see: (I'm sure there are more)
- It would be convenient to say that operationally every inventory
identifier = new Item graph. However, in some libraries, parts get their
own inventory identifiers (e.g. multiple DVDs in a case).That would
split up sets. Also, some libraries barcode each issue of a serial.
"Holdings" gets complicated pretty quick.
- For a given library, this may not be the most efficient way to manage
holdings. You could imagine a Library or Location graph that links to
Item graphs. I suppose we could presume that internally a system can
"re-graph" this based on needed functionality.
- Item vs. annotation gets especially complicated for collections of
unique items. In a sense, an artwork could be an item, and will have no
manifestation. How far should we push the physicality division between
Instance/Manifestation and "thing-i-ness"? (There may be no answer to
- Nothing in BF helps us understand how this data interacts with
purchasing, circulation, or other library/archive management functions.
So it's hard to know if we've got what we need for all of those. It's
the Item level that interacts heavily with those functions, so perhaps
this needs to be thought through.
OK, there's a straw person. Go at it.
> otion of authority records, we should equally drop the notion of
> holdings/item records and simply identify and describe what we're
> concerned with.
> I want to be able to make assertions about books in the same way that
> I want to make assertions about people, locations, events, and all of
> the other things we hold dear. Say I take a photograph of the book. I
> want an identifier in order to say <photograph> <depicts> <book> ...
> not <photograph> <depicts> <item-record> ... that would be a very
> different photograph, likely of a computer screen :)
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net