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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: Consistency

From:

"Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 30 May 2013 10:58:48 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

I am beginning to see a common thread: People complain. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Consistency

On 5/30/13 6:34 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> I'm not so worried about RDA rules on using terms instead of codes. If a cataloger chooses a text term from a picklist, she may think she's recorded the term, but behind the scenes, a uri is recorded. Both sides are happy.
> Nate

Nate, you are right, but there's a catch. Let me tell a story. When we were creating the RDF for RDA we decided to use the RDA name for the term in the RDF property. In part this was so that JSC could look at the RDF in the Metadata Registry and see the correlation with their work.
This, however, resulted in teratologies like:

http://rdvocab.info/Elements/noteonChangesinContentCharacteristicsExpression

People complained.

In creating the RDF for FRBRer, Gordon Dunsire decided to use codes instead. At some point, codes will be displayed to humans as friendly language terms, but early developers end up seeing the URIs with the codes themselves. So what they see is:

http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/P3086

People complained.

The upshot is that it doesn't matter whether it's a code, a language term, or a randomly generated set of characters. What matters is whether YOU understand it. MARC terms have become a language because people understand the codes directly, without any translation to natural language. We know that in the future cataloging interfaces will show catalogers something that they, presumably, understand. We also need to help early developers and reviewers get a grip on what they are looking at. I find it interesting/odd that so many RDF or OWL ontologies do not display natural language labels in the place of URIs. Even though the mantra is that URIs are for machines, we keep showing them to people.

kc
p.s. The BIBFRAME vocabulary pages are very nice, and in fact COULD mask URIs that don't use terms. But I bet someone would complain about how hard it is to remember the URL for the page. :-)

>
> -------------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> -------------------------------------------
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> 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 Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Consistency
>
> 29.05.2013 18:59, Diane Hillmann:
>> I found the same kinds of things when aggregating NSDL data about a
>> decade ago, though of course on a smaller scale! (Defaults with
>> various misspellings of 'unknown' were my particular trigger). I think
>> that what would help us avoid having to cope with crappy text into our
>> dotage is to build tools that help us serve up standardized text when
>> we think we still need it, while not actually creating or storing it
>> as text. We know humans will continue to make these kinds of errors if
>> we ask them to enter text during the cataloging process, but if users
>> need to see these kinds of notes, we need to build smarter tools to make it happen.
>>
> Exactly. I cannot understand why RDA does not, wherever possible, advocate the use of codes instead of English text. And all MARC specimens of RDA data abound with verbiage although codes do exist, as for example in the 33X's. One important aspect is international exchange and multilingual catalog interfaces, the other is most certainly consistency. As you point out, software should of course be able to catalogers with comfortably inputting codes with not having to know the numbers or acronyms literally, and OPAC software can display whatever text is found suitable for the situation at hand. Imstead, English language verbosity and loquatiousness abound in the data, with excessively long labels in XML designs to make your head spin and at the same time increasing the probability of errors, i.e.
> inconsistencies.
> The front end for catalogers will likely be the most important aspect of RDA cataloging if it is ever to become a success story.
> It will have to be much more efficient than MARC.
> With BIBFRAME, I see little hope of this happening, more to the contrary.
> (Furthermore, it doesn't help that the RDA scripture is under lock and key of a global monopoly.)
>
> B.Eversberg

--
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

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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