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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: Punctuation

From:

"Myers, John F." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:33:51 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (30 lines)

I was strongly reminded during the BibFrame Forum at ALA MidWinter, in a presentation on the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek's experience with BibFrame, that MARC was designed as a COMMUNICATION format. In the U.S., we have since leveraged it as a storage format and cataloging interface, to our current dismay. Not so for our German colleagues, who use MARC strictly as it was intended, for communication, and have separately developed systems for the other functions. As we continue to run afoul of assumptions about how BibFrame does or does not meet the functionality of MARC, I can't help but feel that our German peers have taken the more productive road, one that has preserved the intellectual integrity of MARC.

Very, very few people understand a 'raw' MARC record, even experienced catalogers -- not the prettified displays we see in OCLC or our ILS, but the gnarly string of digits and characters. Catalogers and users should no more need to see or understand raw BibFrame data either.

For all that ISBD punctuation is the grand-daddy of data mark up, and elegant in its conciseness (and for all that it pains me to see a catalog record, MARC or otherwise, that lacks it), the point remains that it is mark up. We now have much more effective mechanisms to mark up and parse data -- we should use them. It is counter-productive to have mark up mean different things depending on where it occurs -- a colon in field 245 (aka ISBD Title and statement of responsibility area) means "other title information," where in field 260 (aka, ISBD publication statement area) means "publisher," etc. We can mark up these things explicitly using XML or other means. If we subsequently desire to display them with language appropriate labels, that can be done; if we want to compile the data into an ISBD display, that too can be done.

Whatever the eventual COMMUNICATION format is that emerges from the BibFrame development process, it should focus on accurately conveying both data and its nature. It should support the eventual presentation of data in mechanisms that similarly convey the data and its nature, but it does NOT need to provide that display in and of itself. Just as the letters I type here are translated first into ones and zeros and then back into the letter forms corresponding to what I typed, so too should the new communication format and its interfaces convert entry by a cataloger into something useable by the computer and then back into something comprehensible to another human being.
 
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

[log in to unmask]
518-388-6623

-----Original Message-----
 J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Quoting Nate Trail:

>If it's in a MARC record, there's no need to guess, because the
>subfields are already parsed parts. Title proper is 245$a, subtitle is 245$b, etc.

Mac replies:
Most patrons never see the MARC record. I'm talking about the OPAC display.

I know of no OPAC which displays the subfield codes. A few allow patrons to click "MARC", but I've never seen anyone but a cataloguer do that.

While if viewed, the MARC subfield codes parse parts, only a tiny minority of people would be able to read with understanding a Bibframe html marked up record. They are dependent on the display based on that record. That display needs punctuation. Punctuation is more likely to be consistent from system to system if in the record.

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

October 2020
September 2020
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