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 and translations from MARC

From:

"Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:43:13 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

Correct. The mechanism for associating "the thing" URI and "the record"
URI is an HTTP 303 (See Other) redirect.

Taking this a step further, stop thinking of the latter resource as a
"record". It would be better to call it an "information resource" that
describes "the thing". Variant representations of that information can
be delivered using a variety of vocabularies and syntaxes that consumers
can select via content-negotiation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> 
> Jeff, while the URI may identify the book, it is also the only Web
hook
> for the retrieval of the bibliographic record, unless you intend to
> create a second URI for the record. The LC "permalink" (and I believe
> OCLC's similar one) is a permanent link back to that record in the
> database. The record is also a "thing".
> 
> If you wish to define the LC or OCLC URI as "thing" identifiers, then
> you (and we all) have to understand that it identifies what library
> cataloging rules decided was a "thing." That could be a monographic
> series, or a monograph in the series; a box in an archive, contents
> undescribed; or, in the case we are discussing here, multiple bindings
> of the same text. The caution here is that the library "thing" and
> someone else's determination of "thing" (e.g. publishers) will differ,
> and we should be careful not to declare ours as more than the library
> view of the world. We are not the world, and will have to be able to
> bend our view in order to meet that of others.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> On 1/24/13 2:38 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > In the old days, LCCNs were "card numbers". When the machines came,
> > they got upgraded to "control numbers". When Linked Data came
around,
> > they got upgraded to "concept numbers".
> >
> > <id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n88055112> identifies a concept.
> > Likewise,
> > <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/136259> identifies a book.
> >
> > String identifiers are buggy whips.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:25 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> >>
> >> I think Kevin Ford is referring to a case of distinction without a
> >> difference rather than uncertain sameness. The point is not that
the
> >> paperback and the hardcover are the same, but that their
differences
> >> don't require separate descriptive records in the catalog. The
> >> cataloged entity includes both, despite their differences.
> >>
> >> To reorient Kevin's example, suppose after a catalog record with
> LCCN
> >> is created, a publisher creates separate records identified by ISBN
> > for
> >> the hardcover and the paperback. Having the LCCN on both of the
> >> publisher's records would mean that both could be retrieved by
LCCN,
> >> and both could provide supplemental data to the LCCN description.
So
> > my
> >> answer to Kevin's question would be "both, in order to enable more
> >> comprehensive data gathering about aspects of the entity described
> by
> >> the LCCN."
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I've found umbel:isLike to be handy property for situations like
> >> these.
> >>> Here's the definition:
> >>>
> >>> The property umbel:isLike is used to assert an associative link
> >>> between similar individuals who may or may not be identical, but
> are
> >>> believed to be so. This property is not intended as a general
> >>> expression of similarity, but rather the likely but uncertain same
> >>> identity of the two resources being related.
> >>>
> >>> This property can and should be changed if the certainty of the
> >>> sameness of identity is subsequently determined.
> >>>
> >>> In general, we may not be able to assert that two individuals are
> > the
> >>> same based solely on current information on hand. However, there
> may
> >>> be quite reasonable bases or methods that the two individuals are
> >>> likely the same without being one hundred percent sure.
> >>>
> >>> umbel:isLike has the semantics of likely identity, but where there
> > is
> >>> some uncertainty that the two resources indeed refer to the exact
> >> same
> >>> individual with the same identity. Such uncertainty can arise
when,
> >>> for example, common names may be used for different individuals
> >> (e.g., John Smith).
> >>> It is appropriate to use this property when there is strong belief
> >> the
> >>> two resources refer to the same individual with the same identity,
> >> but
> >>> that association can not be asserted at the present time with
> >> certitude.
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:23 PM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> >>>>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and
> >>>>> all standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the
> >>>>> manifestation
> >>>> (aka
> >>>>> instance), not the work.
> >>>> -- Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are two ISBNs
> in
> >>>> one bib record.  One for the hardback, the other is for the
> >>>> paperback.
> >>>> Of
> >>>> course, there is one LCCN in the 010.
> >>>> If ISBNs are used as "splitting" points - meaning that two
> BIBFRAME
> >>>> Instances would be created from the one MARC bib record in the
> > above
> >>>> example - where does the LCCN go?  Neither Instance? The first
> >>>> Instance created from splitting the ISBNs from the 020? Both
> >>>> Instances?
> >>>> If the answer is neither or both, what is the role of the LCCN
(or
> >>>> another traditional description identifier, such as an OCLC
> number)
> >>>> in the new ecosystem?
> >>>> Cordially,
> >>>> Kevin
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:40 PM
> >>>>> To: Ford, Kevin
> >>>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
Kevin
> >>>>> quoted:
> >>>>>>> Is there a theory beyond the mappings? In this example
> >>>>>>> (http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/BFbook.html), the LCCN is mapped
> > to
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> work ...
> >>>>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and
> >>>>> all standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the
> >>>>> manifestation
> >>>> (aka
> >>>>> instance), not the work.
> >>>>> I too am concerned by the omissions and mapping.  The
> >> bibliographic
> >>>>> universe is far more complex than Bibframe to date seems to
> >> assume.
> >>>>>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> >>>>>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing
> >>>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> >>>>>    ___} |__
> >>>> \__________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> 
> --
> 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

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