On 07/05/2013 15:28, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Presuming that the underlying data format will be RDF triples, that does
>not change the cataloger view of creating a prescribed "complete
>description." In fact, catalogers may be no more aware of the triples
>than I am of the individual packets that will carry this email across
>the network. The job of the cataloger is to describe resources, not to
>create RDF triples. The library conventions provide the cataloger with a
>set of rules for creating a compliant description. In addition, it is
>hoped that any future cataloger interface will represent the cataloger's
>view of the description to be created.
>On 5/6/13 12:43 PM, Francisca Hernandez wrote:
>> Yes, in RDF no need for records. But what about to catalogue a book.
>> How many triples do the cataloguer have in mind? How many data models.
>>Cataloguing is easier if you think in a record (and some distilled
>>rules) than in a lot of triples (much more triples if you have to think
>>in different data models). Sorry if I'am not expressing that properly.
>>Iam very confused about so many harmonization (CRM to FRBR, FRBRoo to
>>EDM, Bibframe to CRM, CRM to EAD...) It seems like the MARC
>>Harmonization of the end of 90's. I understand them more or less, not
>>always, but I am not able to explain this to a cataloguer without skills
>>in RDF, that are majority. Yes, I suppose the software will do.
>> But still the problem is how to produce so many 'records' or 'triples'
>>to millions of resources published every year (digital or not
>>digital).The idea of record is something that still will remain a long
>>time, at least while the software allow to make all the triples that a
>>book (or a resource) need to have a good representation. Are triples
>>soustainable for cataloguing?
>> How to translate triples to a simple (or enough simple) data entry. It
>>is not the same to treat an RDF file (you can convert to whatever if you
>>are experienced), than cataloguing. The old data entry. I'am affraid
>>cataloguing will became slow, difficult and more unsustainable than now.
>>During a lot of years it was discussed if cataloguing was sustainable. I
>>think that if RDF, no matter which schema or model, is not translated to
>>a good data entry (a record), we will have a lot of bad descriptions or
>>incomplete representations of resources (whatever resource means, that
>>I'm not very sure).
>> Librarians are striving to participate in the world of open data. Now
>>we have to produce triples useful for everyone, but will be sufficiently
>>useful for librarians? There are many millions of data to loss security
>>in what we are doing.
>> No need for records? What for is DESCRIBE if to create 'a record' with
>>all the triples related with a resource.
>> De: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>[[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Young,Jeff (OR)
>>[[log in to unmask]]
>> Enviado el: lunes, 06 de mayo de 2013 20:23
>> Para: [log in to unmask]
>> Asunto: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements)
>> I agree, no need for ³records² going forward.
>> Relational databases were 1st conceptualized back in 1969. Granted,
>>they had limited scalability, which justified libraries pretty much
>>ignoring them in favor of ³records² for the next 40 years. Those limits
>>are gone now, though, thanks to Linked Data. It¹s time to move on.
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Murray, Ronald
>> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements)
>> No need for ³records,² going forward:
>> It may (I hope) be more easily translatable to the open world, but
>>libraries need a sharable data format that replaces the current record
>>format. So I do think that it is appropriate to *also* think of BIBFRAME
>>as a record, and that some of its "record-ness" may remain within a
>>library silo because it is only relevant there. A primary use case for
>>library metadata is the sharing of descriptions of published materials
>>that make up the inventories of library holdings, and are key to the
>>management functions of library systems (acquisitions, collection
>>development, circulation). These descriptions are indeed "records"
>>regardless of the technology being used to hold the metadata. The
>>soon-to-be-current cataloging rules separate "description" and "access."
>>To my mind, the "access" part is most interesting as linked data, while
>>the "description" part functions as a bound package (c.f. ISBD as the
>> Life Before Data While RDF is designed to generate graph-like data
>>structures, that does not mean that RDF has articulated graph theory in
>>its entirety. For example, within the first three pages of Dénes König¹s
>>(1935) textbook* on graph theory, he defines graphs and subgraphs.
>> But subgraphs are apparently what we have been discussing all along.
>>Starting with the notion of a single (disconnected) global graph offered
>>up by the W3C, we can refine that notion to include:
>> * Subgraphs of the global graph that are defined and enhanced by
>>libraries, archives, etc., in pursuit of their missions.
>> * Subgraphs within the library subgraph that represent resource
>>descriptions currently referred to by the implementation-oriented term
>> * Subgraphs within the above subgraph that partition a resource
>>description into logically/practically-motivated groupings (e.g. WEMI,
>> * Subgraphs of the great global graph that are connected to library
>>defined subgraphs, and provide information generated by external
>>communities of description.
>> Graph/subgraph thinking lends itself to typing and subtyping for the
>>tidy-minded, and can invoke familiar (conceptual and implementable)
>>strategies for graph-like resource description assembly, disassembly,
>>positioning, traversal, insertion, extraction, etc.
>> Life As Data Now we can think about how well RDA and other schemes
>>support subgraph creation and use.
>> König¹s textbook the first in its field:
>> ger: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/493400862
>> eng: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/20318446 (p. 1-3)
>> Ron Murray
>> Dans les champs de l¹observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits
>>préparés. Louis Pasteur. Lille, 1854.
>> ³Opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official
>>statements of the Library of Congress."
>[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net