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:

Fwd: [BIBFRAME] Authorities

From:

Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:57:52 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (221 lines)

I agree with Karen's basic point that Bibframe model documents should
prefer examples from common practice over exotic ones.  Adding an
access point for publisher is relatively unusual.

Transcribed data and controlled data serve different purposes. There
are good reasons for preferring one over the other in some cases, and
good reasons for using both. Given that they serve different purposes
and can take different forms in relation to the same object, they
shouldn't be considered redundant. When the transcribed and controlled
forms of a publisher name look the same in a record, that's a
coincidence--not a redundancy.

MARC bibliographic records use 6XXs to express subject relationships,
but subject relationships are generally understood in FRBR and RDA as
work level relationships. Whatever data model we use to represent
works will need to be able to express a work's relationship to
subject. That's not currently available in MARC authorities, which
makes the authority format problematic for representing works. For
that matter, the MARC Authority format does a poor job of representing
work relationships generally--relationships to multiple creators,
relationships to other works, etc.

Representing the subjects and creators of a work and its relation to
other works in each of its manifestation-level bib records IS
redundant and fraught with problems. However Bibframe shakes out, I'm
hoping it both reduces that kind of redundancy and enables the kind of
interaction with and enrichment from external sources that Ed Jones
describes.

Stephen


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Authorities
To: [log in to unmask]


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 defined
relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Example of BIBFRAME Authority
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.

kc

>
> Stephen
>
> 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 [1]), 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.
>>
>> kc
>> p.s. Catalogers on the list: please feel free to correct any mis-statements
>> here about RDA!
>>
>> [1] 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
>
>
>

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet


-- 
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

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