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:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:54:22 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

I think we all agree that a hardback and a paperback are two different 
publisher products. My impression was that one of the reasons that those 
are put on the same record today was to avoid showing the user two 
"copies" of the same thing when most users didn't care. We don't create 
two records for c.1 and c.2 for that same reason. I think a lot is going 
to depend on how easy it is to manage good user displays from our data. 
(And I'm not implying that the user displays in MARC-based systems are 
some high standard we should hold ourselves to.) Is a new print product 
by the same publisher with the same text an instance? or a copy? What 
makes for a significant difference to the user? Whatever we decide the 
answer to that latter is, we need to have those distinctions in our data 
so the display can make use of them.

kc

On 1/25/13 3:52 PM, Kevin Ford wrote:
> Different page numbers, etc.
>
> In short, a new Instance.
>
> It might not *always* be correct (perhaps it does boil down to a 
> binding difference only), but from what we're seeing creating 
> Instances based on differing ISBNs is right nearly all of the time.  
> And, certainly at this stage of experimentation, we've chosen to play 
> the averages.
>
> When you start to look closely at this on field, a host of questions 
> emerge.
>
> Stipulating that a book has been bound for libraries, and has its own 
> ISBN, can we safely assume it is the hardback version that has 
> received this treatment?
>
> Even if the answer to the above is yes, I would still feel wary 
> considering treating one type of ISBN in a special way.  There are 
> loads of different types of bindings.
>
> Can we always be certain that, within these different binding types 
> (identified by ISBN), the physical characteristics (page numbers, 
> e.g.) of the book are the same?
>
> Can we always be certain that the one without a qualifier is the 
> hardback version?
>
> We haven't attempted logic in the code to deal with multi-volume ISBNs.
>
> The ISBN can be a decent way to identify different Instances of a 
> Work, but it contains a fair amount of variation that we've not yet 
> attempted to tackle.  At this time, that is why simple splitting rules 
> are attractive.
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
>
> On 01/25/2013 09:33 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
>> Too bad it's not that simple (publisher binding vs library binding). 
>> The second ISBN may be for the paperback, with new introductory 
>> material, updates, corrections, better indexing, etc.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nate Trail
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Network Development and MARC  Standards Office
>> Technology Policy Mail stop 4402
>> Library Services
>> Library of Congress
>> 202-707-2193
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:23 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>>
>> Kevin Ford asked:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> A different binding does not a new manifestation (aka instance) make, 
>> so both ISBNs should be associated with a single instance.
>>
>> We don't want to get into trying to disguish between publisher 
>> binding and library rebinding.  The content is unchanged.
>>
>> Let's not confuse manifestations with items.
>>
>> If contrary to bibliographic logic two records are created. the LCCN 
>> should be associated with both.
>>
>>
>>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>    ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>>

-- 
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