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  January 2012

BIBFRAME January 2012

Subject:

Re: What the data tells us

From:

Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 8 Jan 2012 17:04:31 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

 Although I acknowledge Roy's points and agree with them. I do think the 
 research on identifying what MARC fields and subfields have been used is 
 necessary and beneficial for going forward, but I think the normative 
 question of what data is useful is more interesting and important. Let 
 me give a few examples of why I think this besides just format-specific 
 usage.

 Some fields that show up a lot don't seem very useful. In my opinion, 
 one of these is the 530 note, which says things like "Also available 
 online" or "Also available on videocassette." If the other version is 
 already in the catalog being searched, hopefully it should have already 
 come up in whatever search was done. In the more likely case that it's 
 not in the local catalog being searched, it confuses users, who often 
 interpret the note to mean the other version is available to them. 
 Presumably a system that did a better job of incorporating FRBR 
 relationships would make this note obsolete anyway.

 On the other hand, there are some things that I think ought to be in 
 MARC that aren't. I have devoted a lot of effort to trying to get some 
 of these that are related moving image materials added. One that still 
 isn't there is a consistent, machine-actionable place to unambiguously 
 record the date of original release of a moving image in the 
 bibliographic record. Original release date is generally given in 
 citations for movies and TV programs so it's clear that it's important 
 to users.

 Use can be unreliable for other reasons. For example, there is a 
 chicken and egg problem with many data elements. Some of these are old 
 elements which were prescient, but not used by systems. This led many 
 catalogers to stop bothering with these fields despite their potential 
 usefulness. As a former colleague put it, "I got tired of cataloging for 
 my grandchildren." At my former library, we came up with a way to allow 
 users to search for chamber music by instrumentation 
 (http://www.bsu.edu/libraries/librarycatalogs/chambermusic.htm), but we 
 had long ago stopped populating the 048 coded instrumentation fields 
 that we needed to drive the searches. This left us with a lot of work to 
 fill in the missing gaps in the data.

 A lot of newer fields and subfields don't seem to get a lot of use. 
 It's partially because they are often niche elements, but it's also that 
 they tend not to be supported by systems so they're not searchable in 
 useful ways and they're often not publicized enough so that the broader 
 community of catalogers know about them. This isn't necessarily a 
 reflection of their potential value.

 Although application profiles may be a good solution for specialized 
 data, there have to be the time and resources to set them up and 
 maintain them. For smaller special interest groups, this may be 
 difficult or impossible. As the OLAC liaison to CC:DA, I feel 
 overwhelmed by the number of changes that we would like to see in the 
 way moving images and other media materials are handled in RDA. OLAC is 
 struggling with tackling this as well as creating best practice 
 guidelines for RDA. It's hard for me to see that we have the resources 
 for a major project on another front, such as an application profile for 
 a new bibliographic framework.

 Kelley

 Kelley McGrath
 University of Oregon
 [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

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