LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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  November 2011

BIBFRAME November 2011

Subject:

Re: What the data tells us

From:

Hal Cain <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 5 Nov 2011 00:35:05 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:41:02 -0700, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>In addition to focusing on goals, I would like suggest that we study what 40
>years of machine-based bibliographic practice tells us. Oh wait, that's
>already been done:
>
>"Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices"
>http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf
>
>One essential fact this report uncovers is that "only 21 to 30 tags occur in
>10% or more [WorldCat] records."
>
>I would like to suggest that one potential implication of this finding is
>that we should think about allowing our 40 years of actual practice to
>identify the core set of elements that clearly are used in bibliographic
>data, and sequester additional complexity in separate packages that although
>they can travel with this core they can also be easily ignored by
>applications that don't choose to address the added complexity.

In general, learning from our experience is necessary; where else could we start? 
However, if the fundamentals of RDA are valid (and I believe they are, though I 
don't necessarily agree with the way they have been turned in to a code, not that 
everything in that code is equally valuable -- but much of it is), then we must 
also consider what RDA gives rise to that isn't in the range of our experience with 
MARC. In this category I would place the possibility of constructing work- and 
expression-level records (or datasets, if "records" is now a bad word), distinct 
from the current construct of authority records for names and for works (without 
distinction between work and expression), and including the subject and genre terms 
that currently can now be applied only to bibliographic/manifestation 
datasets/records.
>
>In other words, one of our goals should be "simple requirements should be
>simple to accomplish". Building mechanisms for various communities to build
>out richer descriptions for particular kinds of resources is great, but it
>should not happen at the expense of added complexity to a core description.

Added complexity is a bugbear of mine.  I have often expressed my anxiety that the 
new code must be *workable* and so far (and the RDA test experience appears to have 
shown) I think it falls short of that goal.
>
>The monolithic nature of the MARC record has been, I submit, one of its
>chief problems. When processing it you never know whether you will see a
>couple dozen data elements or nearly 3,000, so you have to code for every
>eventuality.

I wonder it you're talking in the same terms others of us use. We (working 
cataloguers) are accustomed to working in at least three levels -- bibliographic 
(description and indexing terms, including classification notation, plus a varying 
range of coded data; authority-controlled terms for indexing terms which are or may 
be common to various resources; and holdings/item level data for the local scene 
and for data specific to the particular copy and required in the particular 
collection environment. Beyond that, we may have links between bibliographic 
records for analytics, components, etc., but much of this data has to be at the 
local level because its workings are system-specific.
>
>Think modular, with a manifest at the top so you know what you have in hand.

Spell out your goals first. Karen Coyle's and Mac Elrod's lists are a good start; 
more can be added, and some can be sub-goals of more general statements.  Designing 
a system before this work is done and reviewed by the bibliographic-control 
community would be pointless, whatever the callos for rapid creation of a new 
bibliographic framework.

Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
[log in to unmask]

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

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