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  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:38:49 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

On 1/9/13 12:26 PM, Eric Miller wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> However, it turned out that there were a couple situations in which this model did not work so well.
>>   
>> One is when there are multiple works on a manifestation and the expression values (such as language) related to each work vary. There was no easy way in our model to represent this.
>>   
>> For example, the English and Spanish language version of Dracula from 1931 are often packaged together.
>>   
>> Work 1                Expression 1                        Manifestation
>> Dracula (1931)    English soundtrack                DVD (1999)
>> English                French subtitles                    1 disc
>>                                                                      ISBN  0783227450
>> Work 2                Expression 2                        OCLC# 46829789
>> Dracula (1931)    Spanish soundtrack
>> Spanish                English and French subtitles
>>   
>> Without a separate expression level, it is unclear how to prevent the wrong connections from being made (work 1 has English subtitles or work 2 has an English soundtrack)
>>   
>> Work 1                        Version
>> Dracula (1931)            DVD (1999)
>> English                        1 disc
>>                                      ISBN  0783227450
>> Work 2                        OCLC# 46829789
>> Dracula (1931)            English soundtrack
>> Spanish                        French subtitles
>>                                      Spanish soundtrack
>>                                      English and French subtitles
> The fact you're separating these out as 2 separate "things" (wether you call it Work or Expression) is a critical step in supporting such disambiguation. MARC / AACR* conflates this and over time, various conventions have been introduced to try and minimize this ambiguity but, as you've pointed in the case of moving pictures, audio, etc. this is still a huge issue.
>
> Separating these Works out as first class resources is a first step. While the granularity of descriptive practices will be an issue, it should be noted that not everything need be described at once.  If these Works are packaged together (and one wants to describe the package), we might think about this package as its own Work with its specific characteristics. The key here is to allow a model to evolve and allow contextual relationships that relate these Works together be introduced as needed.

I like the idea that the full granularity doesn't have to happen at the 
outset -- either of the model or of the data. What I've been trying to 
articulate for a while is a way that the "things" at different levels 
could be created "on demand." That is, for a simple bibliographic item 
it could all be in one graph; for Kelley's complex case, additional 
graphs could be created that represent the Expression level that she 
needs. This would also allow different communities to adopt practices 
most appropriate to their resources and their users rather than forcing 
everyone into the same mold. This means that "my" ideal model would 
allow Work and Instance (or the whole of FRBR) to collapse into a single 
simple graph, or to expand to as many "levels" as needed. The data, 
rather than the data structure, would allow "Workness" or 
"Expression-ness" to be inferred from the data based on the community's 
definitions.

What I obviously haven't figured out yet is how these different graphs  
could interact usefully with each other, but I am hoping that having the 
data as a graph will make that possible. Where it gets tricky, or at 
least where I get stuck, is in managing relationships like "translation 
of" -- FRBR only allows "translation of" between two Expressions; would 
it be possible to have relationships that make sense when the 
bibliographic data is expressed with a variety of entities?

I keep drawing pictures of this, and if I finally get one that seems to 
work I will definitely share it. :-)

> - 
> http://www.amazon.com/2012-Studio-Ghibli-Collection-Titles/dp/B0081UEWI2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1357745050&sr=8-3&keywords=Miyazaki 
> In this case, I'd assert there are 3 separate Works (the original in 
> japanese, the one dubbed into en-uk and the one dubbed into en-us 
> which include the voices of various famous actors, etc.). 

I wish we could get rid of the term "Work." I think it is the source of 
confusion because we all seem to have strong ideas attached to that 
word. If we called it "thing7" and allowed thing7's to either stand 
alone or be joined into sets based on various criteria we might be 
better able to reach agreement. Different people could use different 
criteria for gathering their thing7's, although it would be best if they 
made their criteria clear so that others could understand it if they want.

kc

>> Expressions that consist of a cluster of related attributes are particularly important for musical expressions (performers, conductor, location, date, arrangement) and also some literary works.
>>   
>> It is also unclear to me whether it is possible to realize the full potential of RDA without the ability to encode all the FRBR group 1 entities separately.
>>   
>> I can see why the focus on translation from MARC led to the existing model. It is clearly the most practical approach for legacy data. Although many researchers have tried, no one has found an effective way to automate the identification of expressions in legacy data. It is not always possible even with manual review.
> Agreed. And that is why the translation from MARC is only one of several of the factors that went into the BIBFRAME design. For BIBFRAME we tried to balance the following:
>
> [[
> * Flexibility to accommodate future cataloguing domains, and entirely new use scenarios and sources of information
> * The Web as an architectural model for expressing and connecting decentralized information
> * Social and technical adoption outside the Library community
> * Social and technical deployment within the Library community
> * Previous efforts in expressing bibliographic material as Linked Data
> * Application of machine technology for mechanical tasks while amply accommodating the subject matter expert (the librarian) as the explicit brain behind the mechanics.
> * Previous efforts for modeling bibliographic information in the library, publishing, archival and museum communities
> * The robust and beneficial history and aspects of a common method of bibliographic information transfer
> ]]
> - http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
>
> The current BIBFRAME list discussion as focused on the translation to MARC (i believe) simply because sample translation code has been made available. As cataloging use-cases, end-user scenarios (very important), vocabulary browsers, more tools, more examples, etc. are made available i anticipate a shift in the dialog.
>
>>   However, it seems to me that Bibframe does need to support the separation of all the WEMI entities, as well as the best possible environment for entering new data going forward. Perhaps there could be some parallel way to allow the creation of a Bibframe work record for an expression with an instance record that only describes the manifestation and that is linked as follows:
>>   
>> Bibframe Work (FRBR work) --> Bibframe Work (FRBR expression) --> Bibframe Instance (FRBR manifestation)
> The above model is certainly accomplishable from a BIBFRAME perspective. The named relationships e.g "-->" however are critical. What we call these Classes is important, but more so are the relationships that contextualize them.
>
> (Thing -- hasExpression --> Thing) conveys some meaning.  But if hasExpression is a high level, general relationship that is a surrogate for more useful detail, I'd encourage the use of richer relationships.
>
> (Thing -- hasTranslation | hasVariant | hasPart | isBasisFor, etc. --> Thing) conveys more useful and actionable context. In a Linked Data / Web environment, theses contextual relationships are key.
>
>> I also wonder how hardcoded the mapping of attributes to Bibframe classes is going to be.
> The initial code bases build their mappings from declarative mapping tables. Quick changes to these tables change the results. I would like to see this be abstracted away in place of a more configurable, end user interface to allow more customized, collection-specific mappings to be performed. Unfortunately, we're just not there yet.
>
>> For example, there was a post that suggested that actors would probably be mapped to instances.
> While different groups are exploring different ways of modeling this, In the current BIBFRAME model (and from my perspective) that would be incorrect. Actors (1xx, 7xx) would be defined as relationships contextualizing Works and People.
>
>> For film actors, this is counter to the approach that makes sense to the moving image cataloging community. The majority of film actors should be associated with the work. This also makes sense from the point of view of efficient data modeling since we want to reuse the list of actors from the work record in all instances rather than recording them redundantly at the instance level. Will there be any mechanism in Bibframe to accommodate differing viewpoints such as these?
> Yes (but in this particular case I think there is a shared viewpoint).
>
> Thanks for your insightful email. I hope this response helps.
>
> --
> Eric Miller
> President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
> http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229

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

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

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