On 9/18/14, 8:59 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> I see two different things here: One is cataloguing practice: In an 
> ideal world the cataloguer of your local library shouldn't catalogue 
> the local copy at all but re-use information from somewhere else, e. 
> g. by creating a holding and link that to the appropriate bf:Instance 
> (or rda:Manifestation or whatever...) _which might or might not be 
> part of the local library's database_. I'm totally aware that this 
> requires large changes in library infrastructure and that we're 
> definitely not there yet, but that would be true data re-use... The 
> second thing is how we build a user display. The information displayed 
> to the user can depend on the context (of the library and of the 
> user). A display in a small public library can take most information 
> from the bf:Instance, look at the bf:Work and figure out that there is 
> a link to the Russian original and create the text "translated from 
> the Russian" from that information. I see no need for the cataloguer 
> to create an extra note. 

Lars, I agree with much of what you say here (I happen to see them as 
one thing, but two also works), but 1) we do not seem to be designing 
today for that ideal. In fact, BIBFRAME seems to be very "local 
system"-oriented when you look at the treatment of authorities (which 
all get local identifiers);  2) we have to define that ideal before we 
can design for it; 3) it is quite possible that the ideal will never be 
achieved, so our design has to take into account the non-ideal situation.

kc


>> The work done around bibliographic relationships, from Tillett's
>> dissertation through FRBR, RDA, and now BIBFRAME, does not distinguish
>> between the whole bibliographic universe and the needs of the local
>> library collection. (I also believe that much of this work was done with
>> only large libraries in mind.) It may not make sense for a library to
>> have resources in its catalog that it does not hold, but that have
>> bibliographic relationships with ones in its collection. Until we have a
>> way that each individual catalog can move users easily from its
>> collection to the larger (and perhaps theoretical rather than
>> inventory-based) bibliographic world, this conflict remains.
> Yes, but we should definitely continue to work with the vision of a "theoretical" bibliographic universe that does not differentiate between local and global data (except for Holdings/Items) in mind and not constrain ourselves to the current library infrastructure.
>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>> The work done around bibliographic relationships, from Tillett's
>> dissertation through FRBR, RDA, and now BIBFRAME, does not distinguish
>> between the whole bibliographic universe and the needs of the local
>> library collection. (I also believe that much of this work was done with
>> only large libraries in mind.) It may not make sense for a library to
>> have resources in its catalog that it does not hold, but that have
>> bibliographic relationships with ones in its collection. Until we have a
>> way that each individual catalog can move users easily from its
>> collection to the larger (and perhaps theoretical rather than
>> inventory-based) bibliographic world, this conflict remains.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600