Thanks for the FRBR discussion page, I'm going to read up more on this with interest!
I'm glad to see there's a FRBRoo section there - in my opinion, with my "qualified librarian hat" on, I think the best direction for interoperability of any sort is there. To make FRBR work at scale and across catalogues I think you need to move to event-based models.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: 31 May 2012 14:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] "RDA Worldwide" at ALA Annual
Bernard, the question of the "scenarios" is a deep one. There are also questions about how FRBR will be implemented. I have a wiki page that gathers various discussions of this, plus links to a number of different (and some very different from others) interpretations of the FRBR model:
Interoperability between those who "FRBR-ize" their data and those who do not is a big issue, especially because few outside of the library community are thinking about FRBR as their bibliographic model at all.
This is one of the areas that needs to be considered: how will FRBR and non-FRBR data interoperate? How would you link standard ISBD or AACR cataloging to descriptions using FRBR? How will you link a classic academic citation to FRBR-ized library data?
BTW, I recently blogged about the National Library of Spain's implementation of their bibliographic data using FRBR concepts but also using ISBD in the Manifestation area. In in the visualization linked there I get a hint of whole/part relationships but didn't explore those in depth. I will try to go back and see how they handled that.
On 5/30/12 10:48 PM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> 30.05.2012 16:49, Karen Coyle:
>> On 5/30/12 12:04 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>>> It transpired that a first draft of a German RDA translation exists.
>>> For reasons unknown to me, no one outside very small circles has yet
>>> been able to read it.
>> Note that because the RDA data elements have been published in the
>> Open Metadata Registry, translation of the display data into German
>> is taking place there. Here's an example in the RDA Content
> (Your remark does not relate to the cited paragraph of my post but to
> another one.) Right, all controlled vocabulary can be translated
> hither and thither, once you get it all implemented into the right
> places of your software.
> But even without that, I admitted that this can be lived with.
> Less easily can we live with a difference in scenarios. If DNB aims at
> Scenario 1 and LC stays put with Scenario 3 (and I see no evidence to
> the contrary), then what? If DNB eventually steps down from 1 to 3 in
> order to improve interoperability, the result will no longer deserve
> the FRBR label. But ok, if LC (and thus MARCistan) can live without it
> This forum being BIBFRAME, however, and after LC's latest announcement
> that a Linked Data approach has been contracted out, does that also
> mean LC is heading towards Scenario 1, including the part->whole relationship?
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net