LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  September 2011

BIBFRAME September 2011

Subject:

Re: Description and Access functions in a post-MARC environment?

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:47:39 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

Quoting "Myers, John F." <[log in to unmask]>:

>
> But, to launch a larger dialogue, I am not unconvinced that  
> conducting a zero-sum analysis of the perceived relative worth of  
> individual data elements in a data format is a bit of a straw man.   
> We can lob personal and anecdotal assessments around all we want,  
> but the data element needs are going to come from the respective  
> descriptive rules -- a conversation for another list or at least  
> another day.  Any prospective upgrade or replacement to MARC needs  
> to be sufficiently robust and flexible to accommodate the  
> descriptive requirements for any number of communities.

I agree in part, John, but there's an issue here: the descriptive  
rules exist to produce the data for the catalog. They aren't an  
abstraction. Behind every element in the rules is an assumption about  
technology and usage. Headings (now "access points") assume a linear  
order:

Smith, John
Smith, John, 1836-1889
Smith, John, 1927-

For systems that do not provide a linear order, a different form of  
heading might be better.

Transcribed elements from the title page have a an assumed surrogate  
role that translates into a user display. We shouldn't try to get  
multiple functions out of that data, but that means that some other  
data elements might be needed (like a coded version of the place of  
publication that disambiguates places.)

For each element, we really need to look at what its purpose is in the  
catalog. Here's an example of something that might be a surprise to  
some people:

245 with filing indicators: This is really two different data elements  
- a transcription of the title from the title page, and a title, sans  
initial articles, that is needed for sorting. If you look at this from  
a systems point of view (and we all should, because this data WILL be  
processed by computer systems) it might be better to break that into  
two data elements. The filing title might have other differences as  
well, and therefore has some overlap with the 246. I assume it was  
kept as a single field originally because the needs were different  
when MARC was developed, since sorting was the only processing that  
took place on titles. (And we were closer to the card catalog in our  
assumptions.)

Cataloging has to support the functions of the catalog. The cataloging  
rules that we have had in the past had as their goal the creation of a  
card. There was no system that came between the cataloger and the  
final catalog entry. Even RDA does not acknowledge that there are  
system needs, and no systems experts were included in the JSC work.  
The creation of cataloging rules today needs to be an iterative  
process between describing the thing and providing user services over  
systems and networks.

I especially need to note that RDA (and FRBR, on which it is based) is  
silent on subject access, and our methods of subject access are now  
over a century old and yet still get little of our attention.

This all means that the cataloging community needs to be actively  
participating in system design and how systems will make use of the  
catalog data. It is not helpful if cataloging produces data that can't  
be used in systems. There is a huge difference between what a person  
might have in mind for some data and what you can do with it with  
programs, systems, networks. The latter are not magic; they are  
methods with constraints and possibilities that must be understood.

More below, believe it or not...

>
> Regardless of the mechanism for the resulting communication format,  
> I think there is a need to address the larger issues of:
> * transcribed vs. controlled data,

What do you see as the issue?

> * controlled data rendered in representational (i.e. text) and  
> non-representational (e.g. URIs) forms (because regardless of the  
> disadvantages of the former, there will likely be instances where  
> that is the only option available),

I think we need to note those elements that we will not attempt to  
further identify, such as transcribed data.

> * how to connect those respective representations of the same data element,
> * how to connect the individual data elements applicable to a given resource,
> * how to connect those out to other resources and entities,

As you probably know, linked data does all of these very well.

> * extensibility, as much as possible, with respect to future data  
> needs (witness the cited regret of Avram in developing different  
> bibliographic formats for specific media, and the implications of  
> FRBR that alters the bifurcation between authority/bibliographic  
> data and replaces it with data for entity groups).
> (And all while keeping the data relatively compact!)

Extensibility is more of a social problem than a technical one. There  
are extensibility mechanisms that work quite well but the idea of  
allowing portions of the community to have their own extensions gets  
great push-back. Again, I think linked data has an answer here but we  
need for more people to understand how that works and how the  
extension of data can work in an non-disruptive way. (I cover this in  
my talks on linked data, but don't have it written up. I should do a  
blog post..)


>
> Somewhat farther afield, how to realize all of that into an interface that:
> * translates computer friendly, language-neutral coding (element  
> labels and data) into something intelligible for those performing  
> the data entry in the context of multiple languages and descriptive  
> codes,
> * won't require full double entry of transcribed and controlled  
> data, and ultimately

Again, I think all of these can be done with today's technology. A  
good start would be some mocking up of what people would like the  
input screen to look like. Perhaps of a wish list of features.

> * renders a coherent and consistent display to end-users of the data.

.... or, allows users to have their own views, or to have community  
views (I always think of music librarianship as having some specific  
needs, but there may be others). There doesn't have to be just one way  
to do things, although there should be a default that makes system  
development and all of that detailed decision-making as simple as  
possible for folks who do not want to go through the effort of  
customizing.

etc.
kc

>
>
>
> John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
> Schaffer Library, Union College
> 807 Union St.
> Schenectady NY 12308
>
> 518-388-6623
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager