Yes, because non-sort instructions are mostly rule-based and can not
easily be syntactically derived, Bibframe should be designed in a way
that it can prevent information loss. True, always omitting all initial
"Der" words in german catalog titles would not conform with german
RAK-WB catalog code.
The character '@' appears also in german WorldCat data as a filing
indicator described in german catalog code RAK-WB § 822, so I assume it
propagated to other german catalogs that deliver bibliographic data on
international level. Example: al- @Matḥaf al-Miṣrī <al-Qāhira> in
Some 15 years ago, there had been a discussion about the most preferred
mechanism for indicating non-filing zones in MARC21. This document
discusses the introduction:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1998/98-16r.html The result was, two
invisible control characters were assigned a new meaning. The
invisibility of the control characters did not disturb card printing or
screen display. Later, in MODS, a visible <nonSort> XML element was
introduced. The reason was, XML did not allow invisible control characters.
What can we learn? In the punchcard age, it was enough to define two
invisible control characters to assign a new notion of "non-sorting" to
interpret ISO2709 streams in a new way. In the XML world, invisible
data was no longer allowed, and non-filing control became visible in
Now today, in Linked Data, a semantic context should be provided, so
non-filing can be applied (or ignored) by programs successfully under
any circumstances, if it's visible or not.
I think the non-filing indicator characters are just one case that
demonstrates the importance to annotate the meaning of symbols in
bibliographic strings that serve special semantics (there are more
symbols, for example "Ordnungshilfen" = filing hints, or cataloger's
comments in brackets '[' and ']'). In Linked Data enviroments like
Bibframe, there must be also some information about the context of the
interpretation of the bibliographic string, that is, what are the
special symbols in the string, and what catalog rules should be referred
to for special symbol interpretation.
Am 16.02.13 18:18, schrieb Thomas Berger:
> I don't think they documented it. Presumably they did not want to craft a
> "parallel" gnd:preferredFilingForTheWork and deemed a visible indicator "@"
> for the filing position more appropriate than invisible control characters
> used as kind of braces.