extremely helpful. thanks!

--e

On May 28, 2013, at 1:30 PM, "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> http://staff.oclc.org/~levan/roles.tsv
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
> 
> Thank You, Ralph!
> 
> can you provide a csv of the full list (codes + counts)? then it would
> be easy to compare to the MARC list to count the "unknowns".
> 
> kc
> 
> On 5/28/13 8:00 AM, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
>> Following in Roy's footsteps, I can provide a little ground-truthing 
>> here.  I created a "roles" index for WorldCat Identities.  It is 
>> browsable, as well as searchable, if you want to look at it.  When I 
>> indexed it, I has a list of 192 codes and their full-text translations
> 
>> and used both in my indexing.  That means I should see 384 index terms
> 
>> in that index.  Instead, I see 1131 terms.
>> 
>> Here's a pointer into that index at the term "clr".  Replace the "clr"
>> in the URL with other starting places. Replace the term with an empty 
>> string and you'll see the top of the index. The terms are hot and can 
>> be clicked on to get to the Identities records themselves.
>> 
>> http://worldcat.org/identities/search/PersonalIdentities?operation=sca
>> n& 
>> scanClause=%0Alocal.Role%20exact%20%22clr%22%0A&responsePosition=1&ver
>> si
>> on=1.1%0A%0A&maximumTerms=20
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:34 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
>> 
>> On 5/25/13 6:47 AM, Kevin Ford wrote:
>>>> It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an 
>>>> authority.
>>> -- It's not with the exception of one scenario, which I expect will 
>>> be very, very few cases overall: when it is impossible to determine 
>>> the role because of poor cataloger entry in existing MARC records.
>> Given that there are tens of thousands of libraries using MARC in 
>> their local systems, only some of which are visible outside their own 
>> systems, I think it will be unwise to make decisions based on 
>> estimates of "very, very few cases". In fact, world-wide, we don't 
>> know how many such cases exist. Also, there are people using MARC 
>> whose language of cataloging is not English, and therefore they use 
>> different sets of codes or terms for roles (and for much else in the
> record).
>> 
>> Once again, I wish our focus were NOT on transitioning MARC at this 
>> stage of the metadata development. I fear that we risk our future by 
>> looking backward, not forward. Honestly, just throw the "bad" MARC 
>> string into a "bad data" field and leave it in the bibliographic 
>> description. It is NOT author/agent information, it is bibliographic 
>> information, and should stay there.
>> 
>> kc
>> 
>> 
>>> This is the Bad Data example in the discussion paper.  I also 
>>> anticipate this will only ever be an issue during a transition phase,
> 
>>> meaning that, moving forward, specific "codes" or links will be used 
>>> to describe the relation of an authority entity to a work.  I also 
>>> see the scenario as a limited accommodation to be made during said 
>>> transition phase.
>>> 
>>> If $e says "editor" or "author of," we can associate those lexical 
>>> entries with relator codes.  If, however, $e says "edtor" or "autor 
>>> of," we cannot necessarily reliably associate those poorly entered 
>>> lexical entries with relator codes.  This is why it is a limited 
>>> accommodation during a transition period.  In the future, designating
> 
>>> a "role" would be done in a controlled manner.
>>> 
>>> I'm not delighted about finding data entry errors in our current 
>>> bibliographic data, but I can see that they are a very small 
>>> percentage all told.  Is a more elaborate solution required for such 
>>> a small amount of existing data, especially knowing we can improve on
> 
>>> this moving forward so that we do not have this problem?
>>> 
>>> Cordially,
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 05/24/2013 07:25 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>>>> It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an 
>>>> authority.
>>>> 
>>>> The person, family, or corporate body represented by an authority 
>>>> may have any number of roles.  A person may be author, editor, 
>>>> illustrator, translator, depicted, or any other role to the work or 
>>>> instance listed in the RDA relator terms or MARC relator codes.
>>>> 
>>>> There should be *one* authority per entity, and the relation(s) of 
>>>> that entity to the work or instance should be external to that 
>>>> authority, perhaps incorporated into the link?
>>>> 
>>>> An entity may have more than one relation to a work or instance, 
>>>> e.g., actor/director, author/illustrator.  There should not be links
> 
>>>> to two or moore authorities for the same entity because of the two 
>>>> or more roles.  There should be one access point per entity per 
>>>> work/instance, with role(s) expressed externally to the authority.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>>>>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>>>    ___} |__
>>>> \__________________________________________________________
>>>> 
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

--
Eric Miller
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229