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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: What's an instance?

From:

Hal Cain <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 17 May 2013 00:45:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:54:32 -0400, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>These are all good things to think about.  But in re-reading your email, 
with the idea of commenting on each, I am struck by the specificity.  It's 
not that the specifity is a bad thing, by any measure, but that, ultimately, 
we are trying to establish some form of useful guidelines that will 
accommodate a very significant percentage of cases.  I'm not saying what 
you've identified are edge cases, but I do wonder how common they really 
are.  That said, what we can figure out now and reasonably address, let's 
look at.  Is there any way to quantify, for example, how often publishers 
actually reuse ISBNs in different editions (is that even tecnically 
permitted?)?

As already said, technically it's not permitted, but it happens.  I have no 
idea how frequently it happens.  Conversely, different ISBNs are given to 
sets of copies which don't differ in ways that matter to the generality of 
users; e.g. some Bible publishers offer the exactly identical content in 
paper, cloth, leatherette, each given a different ISBN (because each is, 
commercially, a different item in their sales catalogue) and perhaps a 
different ISBN again for leatherette with gilt edges.  I am not 
exaggerating.  From the user perspective, these differences are 
insignificant.  Differences that are significant are, surely, those that 
mean the copies in hand/on screen either carry different content, or else 
are not interchangeable (the content, in print terms, appears on a different 
page, therefore page citations are not interchangeable).
>
>In the end, we must all accept that it is not going to be perfect.  We want 
it to be but, as you and others have very rightly pointed out, bibliographic 
data can be messy.  There is, quite simply, nothing "safe" on which to 
unambiguously identify instances of works in MARC records.  The "splitting" 
will be some complicated calculus that takes into account ISBNs, bindings, 
and publication information.

The challenge, surely, is to determine what differences are significant; 
whether the common data elements can be shared; and then HOW to share them.

I disagree with much of the RDA process and results, but I agree with JSC's 
insistence that the way the data is presented (displayed) is a different 
matter from defining the elements to be recorded, and the rules for to 
record them.  Nor do I believe that Bibframe has to be written in terms of 
RDA/FRBR -- but if it makes fundamental RDA/FRBR concepts harder to 
implement and exploit, why should we bother?  FRBR is far from being the 
last word on bibliographic constructs and relationships, but given that they 
underlie, imperfectly, the code we're adjusting to, we have to address them 
and devise ways of getting more value from cataloguers' efforts.

Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
[log in to unmask]

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

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