And to underline Mac's discomfort over the vocabulary (i.e. the term
"collation"), many of us cataloguers interpret "collation" and the
description of the physical characteristics of a volume. One may say
"you'll get used to this," but lately I've been reading a discussion thread
in the rare materials field where the expression of the correct (complex)
collation of an early printed volume is being considered.
[log in to unmask]
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:46:42 -0500, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think this is a key insight. RDF vocabularies are a balancing act between
denotation and connotation. There is no way to make everyone happy, but
because the vocabulary is bound to http URIs, you can at least explain the
intention discoverable using standard Web mechanisms like browsers.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:38 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thomas Berger said:
>> RAK § 822 is located in section 9. something of the rules, dealing with
>> collation (filing rules). ...
> The thing which disturbs me most about moving from MARC numbers to
> Bibframe English word markup, is the ambiguity of language.
> From serving as the pastor of small Black rural churches, "collation"
> will always mean to me the buffet at a social gathering. This may
> seem a silly ambiguity, but more serious ones abound.