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:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:27:53 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (77 lines)

Quoting Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>:


> 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.

Note that the analogous information for books is also not recorded,  
although I don't think it's a MARC question but a cataloging question:  
the original date of publication. Re-issued versions of classics have  
dates like "2008" and no where in the bib record does it say that the  
Work dates from, say, 1813. This has got to be a bit confusing for  
users, some of whom are undoubtedly wondering why someone writing  
today sounds so... antique. Admittedly sometimes this date isn't  
known, but where it is I would think it would help users make their  
selection from the catalog; it would be good to know if you are  
getting a modern work or one from 200 years ago. It would also allow  
searching by a meaningful date, for example if you wanted to read  
fiction from a particular time period. In many library catalogs today  
if you search for Pride and Prejudice and date 1813 you get zero, even  
though the library may have multiple versions of the Work.

kc

>
> 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]
>



-- 
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

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