+1
On Tue May 28 07:28:27 2013, Diane Hillmann wrote:
> Two quick points:
>
> In MARC, there's the 720 field that's pretty generic, intended to be
> used when not much was known about the agent or it's relationship--a
> parking lot, if you will.
>
> For linked data, the ideal would be having a hierarchy of roles, like
> RDA has, from the more specific to the more generalized, so that a
> very specific role need not be used if the information wasn't
> available. I think we have the tools and the thinking to do a
> reasonable job of moving the legacy data forward, without necessarily
> labeling anything 'bad'.
>
> Diane
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hmm. I kind of like the suggestion of a parking lot field, that
> systems could display as notes. LC has a lot of these "from old
> catalog" entries, that just are begging to be cleaned up, and
> putting them there tells people we know they need cleanup. I'm
> sure there will be other things we can't figure out what to do with.
> Nate
> -------------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> -------------------------------------------
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> Library of Congress
> 202-707-2193 <tel:202-707-2193>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
>
> On 5/25/13 6:47 AM, Kevin Ford wrote:
> > > It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an
> > > authority.
> > -- It's not with the exception of one scenario, which I expect
> will be
> > very, very few cases overall: when it is impossible to determine the
> > role because of poor cataloger entry in existing MARC records.
>
> Given that there are tens of thousands of libraries using MARC in
> their local systems, only some of which are visible outside their
> own systems, I think it will be unwise to make decisions based on
> estimates of "very, very few cases". In fact, world-wide, we don't
> know how many such cases exist. Also, there are people using MARC
> whose language of cataloging is not English, and therefore they
> use different sets of codes or terms for roles (and for much else
> in the record).
>
> Once again, I wish our focus were NOT on transitioning MARC at
> this stage of the metadata development. I fear that we risk our
> future by looking backward, not forward. Honestly, just throw the
> "bad" MARC string into a "bad data" field and leave it in the
> bibliographic description. It is NOT author/agent information, it
> is bibliographic information, and should stay there.
>
> kc
>
>
> > This is the Bad Data example in the discussion paper. I also
> > anticipate this will only ever be an issue during a transition
> phase,
> > meaning that, moving forward, specific "codes" or links will be used
> > to describe the relation of an authority entity to a work. I
> also see
> > the scenario as a limited accommodation to be made during said
> > transition phase.
> >
> > If $e says "editor" or "author of," we can associate those lexical
> > entries with relator codes. If, however, $e says "edtor" or "autor
> > of," we cannot necessarily reliably associate those poorly entered
> > lexical entries with relator codes. This is why it is a limited
> > accommodation during a transition period. In the future,
> designating
> > a "role" would be done in a controlled manner.
> >
> > I'm not delighted about finding data entry errors in our current
> > bibliographic data, but I can see that they are a very small
> > percentage all told. Is a more elaborate solution required for
> such a
> > small amount of existing data, especially knowing we can improve on
> > this moving forward so that we do not have this problem?
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/24/2013 07:25 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> >> It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an
> >> authority.
> >>
> >> The person, family, or corporate body represented by an
> authority may
> >> have any number of roles. A person may be author, editor,
> >> illustrator, translator, depicted, or any other role to the work or
> >> instance listed in the RDA relator terms or MARC relator codes.
> >>
> >> There should be *one* authority per entity, and the relation(s) of
> >> that entity to the work or instance should be external to that
> >> authority, perhaps incorporated into the link?
> >>
> >> An entity may have more than one relation to a work or instance,
> >> e.g., actor/director, author/illustrator. There should not be
> links
> >> to two or moore authorities for the same entity because of the
> two or
> >> more roles. There should be one access point per entity per
> >> work/instance, with role(s) expressed externally to the authority.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
> >> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> >> ___} |__
> >> \__________________________________________________________
> >>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|