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  November 2012

BIBFRAME November 2012

Subject:

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

From:

"Riley, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:00:56 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

The current bibliographic structure is essentially bifurcated between: bibliographic records that describe and support access to resources; and, authority records that authorize and structure the headings/access points employed within the bibliographic records.  The paucity of information recorded and functionality of our authority records betrays their roots as a subordinate structure to support the main (card) catalog.

The Functional Requirements family of models articulate a structure where all of the associated entities in a bibliographic universe exist on a relatively level and agnostic playing field -- the records for works, expressions, manifestations, items, people, families, corporate bodies, concepts, objects, places, events are all of equal importance to the functioning of the overall database.   Recorded elements are distinctly and uniquely associated with each class of entity.  In particular, records for entities formerly addressed by authority records are significantly more robust, holding elements above and beyond the mere heading/access point.  Elements from related entities across the database are gathered and presented to form the display we traditionally associate with a bibliographic record.

The BIBFRAME model, in its overview articulation on p. 8 of the report, appears to sustain the former model, with its references to Instances and Authorities.  The further details and then the articulation in "Serializing the BIBFRAME model" however, show that things are somewhat better aligned with the FR family than the overview indicates.  

There are still some concerns though that:
* the distinct nature of the elements associated with the FRBR Work and Expression entities will be muddled in the BIBFRAME Creative Work class;
* the FRBR Item entity will be inadequately articulated or will be subordinated within the BIBFRAME Annotation class;
* a subtle intellectual bias dividing the catalog into the BIBFRAME Instance class and "the rest" will persist.

Having said that, I think the report is an interesting starting point for further conversation  The devil will be in the details, as they say.  So working out implementation will be a critical aspect, that will trump all the labels we apply.

Regards,

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

[log in to unmask]
518-388-6623

-----Original Message-----
Kevin Ford wrote:

Dear Bob,

Thanks for the early feedback.  I look forward to your thoughts once you've read the document more thoroughly.  

I wanted to take the opportunity to comment on or request further information about this:

> Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the 
> division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I 
> gather is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p.
> 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me.

I think it possible that Authorities (People, Places, Topics, Organizations) and Instances (as well as Works) could be seen as equal entry points and therefore not "continue the division of the database," but I may be misunderstanding you.  

Even as I write/read that statement, I feel like I am not understanding your point.  

Can you tell us *how* the proposed model continues the old model with respect to the "division of the database"?

Cordially,

Kevin

--
Kevin Ford
Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress Washington, DC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
> 
> I haven't had a chance to look closely at the document yet, but it 
> does disturb me that "a team from Zephira" appears to have, having 
> thought about it for a few months, swept away nearly two decades of 
> consideration by the best minds in the cataloging profession by 
> apparently abandoning the FRBR model, as Mac points out below. I 
> realize not everyone agrees with the FRBR model but I should think 
> such a step should not happen simply because of a report from a 
> consulting group. Sally McCallum said in her announcement that "like 
> MARC, [the model] must be able to accommodate any number of content 
> models", which is certainly true, but one would think that at least 
> one of those content models might be RDA, which was the entire impetus 
> for hiring Zephira to come up with a new model for us. Since RDA is 
> firmly based on FRBR and DOES include provisions for describing and 
> linking to expressions, it does seem inappropriate that the new model 
> should not provide for this entity. I have a hard time seeing how this 
> model would be any better a fit for RDA than the current MARC model.
> 
> Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the 
> division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I 
> gather is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p.
> 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me. In an ER linked data 
> database we would have descriptions of the entities linked by 
> relationship links.
> 
> Bob
> 
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form 
> Authorities Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568

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

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
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