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:

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:03:13 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (269 lines)

Bob,

Other than hating my example, do you have any comments on the multiple  
use of fields? Because that was the main point of my post: that the  
compromises that we see often have to do with trying to perform  
multiple functions with a single field. Do you agree with that, or do  
you see other reasons for the choices made in areas like title proper  
and publisher (and I may be thinking mainly of the AACR1 options on  
publisher, since those are the cataloging rules I learned)?

kc

Quoting Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>:

> Transcription is a compromise. I point out that
>
>
>
> Semantic Web FOR DUMMIES
>
>
>
> is also not transcribed "as is." It is probably not an exact  
> transcription of what's on the title page because it ignores line  
> breaks. What's actually on the title page is probably something like
>
>
>
> Semantic Web
>
> FOR
>
> DUMMIES
>
>
>
> And that transcription also ignores spacing and justification-what's  
> really on the title page is probably centered:
>
>
>
> Semantic Web
>
> FOR
>
> DUMMIES
>
>
>
>
>
> But also, what's on the title page is no doubt a different font and  
> the font sizes of the different words might differ from the font I'm  
> using to "transcribe." So THAT isn't "as is" either. Even a  
> photograph of the title page would not be "as is" because it would  
> probably be a different size from the title page and printed on a  
> different kind of paper or not printed at all.
>
>
>
> All these things could make a difference in identifying, to see if  
> two books are the same. And in fact this sort of thing DOES make a  
> difference sometimes. But there's a limit to what can (or should) be  
> done and current transcription rules represent a compromise between  
> creating a transcription that goes all out and creating a  
> transcription that is usable and accurate for 99.99% of the cases.  
> There's a line between what we're willing to accept as "accurate  
> transcription" and what we're not. Karen's line is a tiny bit beyond  
> the line given in current transcription guidelines. But lines could  
> be placed way beyond her line-her transcription is also  
> "sorta/kinda/almost." If the reader of a record is aware that (a)  
> case has been changed; (b) line breaks are ignored; (c)  
> justification and other typographical details such as font size are  
> ignored, then the reader of the record can compensate and conclude  
> with a more than reasonable basis that two books are or are not the  
> same.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
>
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine  
> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R.  
> Snow, 1842.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum  
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Description and Access functions in a  
> post-MARC environment?
>
>
>
> Quoting Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> From a technical viewpoint I think that we *should* have both
>
>>> transcribed strings and "data" in our descriptions, since they have
>
>>> different functions.
>
>>
>
>> Perhaps I'm more technologist than librarian (someday someone will
>
>> probably quote me on that), but I could use a refresher as to why
>
>> the transcribed strings are useful.  I get why the colocation
>
>> function of identifiers for attributes like publisher and
>
>> publication location are important.  In the current era, though, I
>
>> don't see the use cases for transcribed strings so am hard pressed
>
>> to assign a value to the activity.
>
>
>
> Peter, I was hoping we'd hear from some catalogers, but here's my take:
>
>
>
> The transcribed parts are intended to be a surrogate for the title
>
> page (primarily). That way, if you have metadata for two books (or one
>
> book and metadata for a similar book) you should be able to compare
>
> the transcribed fields and see if they are the same.
>
>
>
> HOWEVER...
>
>
>
> Not all of the transcribed data is transcribed "as is." For example,
>
> the case of titles is changed to sentence case, regardless of the case
>
> of the title on the title page. This is because the title, like so
>
> many data elements in cataloging, performs more than one function in
>
> the catalog record. It is both a surrogate (which in fact it isn't
>
> quite) and an entry element. So although titles often look like:
>
>
>
>      Semantic Web FOR DUMMIES
>
>
>
> that would be "transcribed" as
>
>
>
>      Semantic web for dummies
>
>
>
> The concept of providing a surrogate for the title page is a useful
>
> one, IMO, but the "sorta/kinda/almost" way that it is done in
>
> cataloging makes it less useful.
>
>
>
> (Note: since some of you may mis-interpret my meaning, I am NOT saying
>
> that the access title must follow the case, etc., of the actual title
>
> page title. I AM saying that we should not have single elements that
>
> attempt to represent different and conflicting information. If you
>
> have two kinds of information, you should have separate elements for
>
> them.)
>
>
>
> kc
>
>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Peter
>
>> --
>
>> Peter Murray         [log in to unmask]        tel:+1-678-235-2955
>
>> Ass't Director, Technology Services Development   http://dltj.org/about/
>
>> LYRASIS   --    Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
>
>> The Disruptive Library Technology Jester                http://dltj.org/
>
>> Attrib-Noncomm-Share   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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

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