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  May 2012

BIBFRAME May 2012

Subject:

Re: [RDA-L] Are RDA, MARC data, and Bibliographic concepts compatible with Relational database principles or systems? (Was: Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF)

From:

Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:52:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

Then again, may be the list would be interested. Life goes on.

Stephen

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [Bernhard-- By the time I got done composing the note below, the
> Bibframe conversation had moved on to other topics, so I'm just
> sending this to you. I see the obstacles your note raised, but think
> there are interesting ways around them. And thanks--my spirits perk up
> a bit whenever I see your name in a list of contributors to a
> discussion, because your comments are regularly thoughtful, pointed,
> and concise. --Stephen]
>
> There are subfields and there are subfields. Some break up easily into
> separate data elements (e.g., 260 $a place of pub, $b publisher, $c
> date of publication). Other subfields are intended to distinguish and
> subarrange a set of identical primary data elements (e.g., name, $b
> birth year; main subject $x subject subdivision). The latter are the
> ones that could be problematic, but only if access is approached
> through a subarranged list.
>
> Take names first. The alternative would be to make a variety of data
> elements accessible via the IDed record or graph that manages each of
> the names matching the initial search. The use of the $d subfield to
> distinguish a name heading works for differentiation, but is actually
> fairly weak as an aid to identification. Suppose instead of
>
> Smith, John, 1950-
> Smith, John, 1953-
> Smith, John, 1958-
>
> we had something different:
>
> John Smith (born: 1950) (occupation: architect) (affiliation: S&D
> Architects) (subject of: Master builder)
> John Smith (born: 1953) (associated place: Lincoln, Nebraska)
> (alternate name: John Michael Smith) (author of: Midwest dreams)
> John Smith (born: 1958) (field of activity: biochemistry) (occupation:
> professor) (editor of: Elements of biochemistry)
>
> The parenthetical elements could be profiled by the system manager or
> the end user and could appear as system-built combinations in strings
> or as popup data or as expandable labels or ... however. As long as
> each nexus of easily accessed facts about a particular John Smith is
> tied to that Smith's identifier, and the identifier is tied to the
> appropriate WEMI objects, the need for differentiating subdivisions
> can be obviated by letting IDs manage differentiation and focusing
> display instead on identifying constellations of facts about the
> entities under review.
>
> The subject case is different, since many topical subject subdivisions
> serve to subcategorize, not just differentiate similar things.  But
> again, the alternatives could be presented to the searcher as a
> constellation of choices constructed from subdivided strings and
> declared syndetic relationships with each choice representing a single
> topical entity, e.g.,
>
> Biochemistry (Narrower topics: Biochemical engineering; Environmental
> aspects of biochemistry; Enzymology; History of biochemistry; Insect
> biochemistry; Methodology for biochemistry; ...) (Broader topics:
> Biology; Chemistry; ...) etc.
>
> The visual hierarchy created by the main heading/subdivision structure
> is not the only way to represent the hierarchical and categorical
> relationships for the user. Put another way--the syndetic relationship
> between "Biochemistry" and "Biochemistry--History" need not and
> probably ought not be born by the syntax of the two headings. Each can
> be considered a single, distinct topic, and the relationship between
> them can be expressed separately as other broader/narrower
> relationships are expressed.
>
> More difficult to address than subdivisions is the problem elements of
> a MARC record which actually apply only to a section or work contained
> within the object. The solution is probably to create separate
> descriptions for each element, e.g., so that each piece in a recording
> could be well paired with its performers, duration, composition type,
> instrumentation, etc.--but that's a problem for another time.
>
> Stephen
>
>
-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428

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

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