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:

Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:56:11 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (37 lines)

Kevin,

Thanks for this and I certainly agree that it's appropriate to make Bibframe a more general format and not bind it too tightly to FRBR and RDA. That said, libraries using RDA and its interpretation of FRBR or some other version of FRBR are presumably going to be some of the major users of Bibframe. So it would seem that even if Bibframe is not determined by RDA and FRBR, it still needs to be able to accommodate them. And I am still having trouble seeing how to reconcile FRBR's many-to-many relationship between manifestations and expressions with Bibframe's one work per instance.

Kelley
________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ford, Kevin [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR

Dear Kelley,

With respect to

> I am glad to hear Bibframe is intended to be so flexible. However, I
> wonder if you could say more about how you plan to reconcile all this
> flexibility with the interoperability needed in a communication format?

and with respect to your earlier email, what follows seems like a good place to contribute the following note.  I penned it a few days ago to a handful of people with whom I found myself in a few conversations about the "Why not model WEMI?" question.  It evidently captured LC's motives well enough that I have been encouraged to share it more widely.

Yours,
Kevin

---------

The BIBFRAME model consciously avoids (or at least tries to avoid) naming associated very closely with FRBR (and its practical application cousin RDA).  Not so much because I think anyone has a strong dislike of Manifestation or Item (or Work or Expression), but because there is a clearly articulated objective that the model to come from this endeavor not be strictly tied to (or seen to be tied to) one model (namely RDA/FRBR). There are other communities, which have their own rules, that we hope BIBFRAME will accommodate, and not all communities will use, or will want to use, RDA rules and a FRBR theoretical model.  Manifestation, Item, Expression are terms that have strong associations to RDA/FRBR.

"Accommodate" - to me - is the key word here, and I know it has been employed to describe the objective in a number of public announcements (I cannot, however, claim that other words have not also been used to capture the same, or similar, sentiment).  We (and I hope that is a royal "we," meaning LC, Zepheira, and the EEs) - we are seeking to lay the foundation for something that captures the division of things in a reasonable and logical manner for what we hope is a large swath of the cultural heritage sector while also establishing a model that can represent the information libraries need in such a way that libraries can use it however libraries want to.

When a few of us in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office started chatting about the relationship of WEMI to BIBFRAME around the water cooler, I think we found agreement when we started thinking that it wasn't our job to prescribe how people will use data described in the BIBFRAME model so long as the data was present and logically presented.  For example, do we need to model - explicitly - an Expression?  If you have a BIBFRAME Work without a language and a BIBFRAME Work with a language component, and the latter has a defined relationship to the former, could a system not reasonably infer that the first is an RDA Work and the second an RDA Expression?  (I do not use "infer" in an ontological/OWL sense but in a more rule-based sense.) There are general rules and a general understanding that need to be established around these types of inferences within the library community, but it's not to say the data isn't there.

When a library receives BIBFRAME data, the ingesting system might decide to parse it, explicitly, into its RDA parts, but if that same data is ingested by an organization that is not a library, that organization might decide to just work with the (slightly higher-level) BIBFRAME Works and Instances, without reference to RDA Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items.  With the BIBFRAME model, we wish to marry the ability to derive the needed specificity while also enabling a more general use of the model.

Warmly,
Kevin

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