Ed, I realize that. I am questioning using a non-intuitive example when
first presenting BIBFRAME to librarians. Obviously, what is there is
supposed to be just an example, not a complete vision of what BIBFRAME
could some day be. If you only show a few authorities as examples, using
ones that are rare from the view of most librarians might not be the
On 11/30/12 8:52 AM, Ed Jones wrote:
> Bearing in mind that content may come from any source, there are cases where publishers may indeed be "authority controlled" (though not via library-supplied metadata). Publisher-supplied metadata (ONIX for Books) may include publisher identifiers drawn from a variety of standardized code databases, such as GLN, SAN, ISNI, as well as library authority metadata (LCCN) (See ONIX Code List 44). Such metadata (and authorities) may be linked to a BIBFRAME Instance via a common ISBN.
> Ed Jones
> National University (San Diego, Calif.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Authorities
> On 11/30/12 7:33 AM, Stephen Hearn wrote:
>> As Karen notes, Publisher is not typically added as an authorized
>> heading in AACR2 cataloging, but it can be. There are authorities for
>> publisher names, and there is a MARC relator term/code (Publisher/pbl)
>> for this relationship, also authorized for RDA.
> Stephen, Thanks.
> can you say more about the circumstances, and if this authorized heading
> is *in addition to* the transcribed publisher statement? If it is
> something that is quite rare, then maybe it shouldn't be used as an
> example in the simple view of the model. I'm guessing that it can be
> used as a subject (a book about the Aldine Press, for example) and
> possibly as a corporate body creator. With the role "pub" my guess is
> that it would be used mainly for rare books where the publisher itself
> is of interest (Aldine Press again).
>> The Bibframe model
>> will need to accommodate this sort of thing--relationships that are
>> enabled for specialized use, not just the ones that are most common.
>> And it will inevitably need to accommodate relationships between
>> established entities and each kind of bibliographic object, however
>> those ultimately get sorted out and named.
>> Current MARC authorities are themselves a poor model for FRBR Work and
>> Expression entities in that MARC cannot express properties like
>> subject which FRBR says belong to these entities.
> ? I'm unclear on what you mean here. MARC expresses "subject" by coding
> data in a 6xx field, no? Or do you mean that MARC can't specify that the
> 6xx relates to work? (Which, since in FRBR/RDA subjects *only* relate to
> work is unambiguous.)
>> I don't see any
>> effort in the early Bibframe model to argue for the appropriateness of
>> either the current authority data structure or the term "authorities,"
>> which is fine. Both currently reflect a focus on "authorized" heading
>> forms which promises to become a lesser component of the identified
>> entity representations we're moving toward with RDA. If "authority"
>> was used in the model document to give catalogers something familiar
>> to grab onto, maybe that wasn't such a good idea. Better to explain
>> more clearly where we've been and where we're going.
> I agree that if the term "authority" is used differently in the bibframe
> model then it will be confusing. The definition in the model is:
> "BIBFRAME Authorities are key authority concepts that are the target of
> relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Example of BIBFRAME
> Resources include People, Places, Topics,
> Organizations, etc. From a cataloging
> perspective Authorities provide a means for
> supporting disambiguation and synchronization
> around authoritative information. From a users
> perspective, BIBFRAME Authorities provide
> effective and efficient control points that can be
> used to help navigate and contextualize related
> BIBFRAME Works and Instances."
> It's unfortunate that it defines authorities as "key authority concepts"
> -- so maybe it does need further unpacking. In particular, there is the
> question about controlled lists v. authorities. They both fit nicely
> into SKOS but we haven't treated them as being "same" for cataloging
> purposes in the past. As we move away from headings defined as text
> strings, the difference between authority control and vocabulary control
> will probably diminish, and I believe that both LC and OCLC have
> pondered this when working with name authority files. For this reason it
> is even more important to clarify what we mean by BIBFRAME Authority.
>> The Bibframe model's eliding of FRBR works and expressions is
>> concerning, but I do welcome the comment that Bibframe expects to
>> distinguish types of works. This acknowledgment that Works (and by
>> implication Expressions) need to be sorted into types could help us
>> label work descriptions in a way that would let us say both that
>> Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a work and that a resource which
>> aggregates Romeo and Juliet with an introduction, a critical essay, a
>> glossary, etc., is also a work, but an aggregate work (as FRBR 3.3
>> states), without sacrificing the ability to distinguish these two
>> types of work. They represent different levels of abstraction and
>> users searching for works should be able to specify which they
>> want--the thirty-some dramatic works Shakespeare wrote, or the
>> thousands of aggregate works centered on those thirty-some plays.
> If you have a spare hour or so, start here:
> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
> and follow the thread (which you may have followed originally, but
> reading through it definitely refreshed my memory)
> This is a thread about FRBR and aggregates, and I believe that we still
> have a serious problem with how this is modeled in FRBR, and also in
> RDA. I am going to try to write a summary of what was said on that
> thread, but it may take a while.
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet, but the authority examples
>>> used in the diagrams in the document do not ring true for me, and I admit
>>> that they are presenting a stumbling block in terms of my own mental image
>>> of bibframe.
>>> Place of publication and publisher are not authority controlled. These are
>>> transcribed elements. "Publisher" in particular is problematic because what
>>> is transcribed from the title page is often the name of an imprint ("Penguin
>>> Classics") not the identity of a corporation or institution. (And with all
>>> of the buyouts of publishers, I think most of us would be hard-pressed to
>>> develop a coherent "who's who" in that area.) Physical format is a
>>> controlled vocabulary, but those are not generally called "authorities."
>>> Almost all authority controlled elements in RDA have their relationships to
>>> either Work or Expression (which I believe means BIBFRAME Work). There are
>>> some authority controlled relationships to manifestations (I keep a cheat
>>> sheet here ), but they tend to be rather specialized, relating to rare
>>> book cataloging or materials like braille.
>>> [Note: There is a Publisher role listed in RDA related to Manifestation, but
>>> I don't know when it is used. I'm suspecting rare books again, but hope
>>> someone more knowledgeable on the list can respond.]
>>> There will be authority controlled entities with relationships to item (same
>>> cheat sheet), again for specialized materials.
>>> In current data, "Work" and "Expression" are sometimes represented in an
>>> authority record. Classical music works seem to always get such an authority
>>> entry. I'm not at all clear on what happens to these as we move into RDA,
>>> since the FRBR:Work entity carries the data elements that are now in the
>>> authority record (plus others), and the anticipated identifier for the
>>> FRBR:Work entity would perform the identification function of the current
>>> authoritative heading.
>>> I hope and expect that library data will expand its use of identified
>>> entities in the future. I would very much like to see at least a controlled
>>> list for place of publication (because I can think of uses for that). This
>>> would have to exist along with the transcribed place information, since that
>>> has a different purpose.
>>> p.s. Catalogers on the list: please feel free to correct any mis-statements
>>> here about RDA!
>>>  http://kcoyle.net/rda/roles.txt
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net