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: Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements)

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 7 May 2013 07:28:20 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

I want to put in support for Francisca's view here, because I think that 
what happens often in this conversation is that we have different but 
equally "true" views being put forward, and we need a way to acknowledge 
that.

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.

We need a layer diagram, with RDF at the bottom, some intervening layers 
(which today we may not be able to fill in) and BIBFRAME near the top, 
followed by actual cataloging applications. Then we could refer to the 
layer we are talking about.

kc


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.
>
> Francisca
>
>
> ________________________________________
> 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 “records” 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 “records” for the next 40 years. Those limits are gone now, though, thanks to Linked Data. It’s time to move on.
>
> Jeff
>
> 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 “records,” 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 data "core").
>
>
> 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 König’s (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 “record.”
>
>
>   *   Subgraphs within the above subgraph that partition a resource description into logically/practically-motivated groupings (e.g. WEMI, EAD, etc.).
>
>
>   *   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.
>
> ------
>
> König’s 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 l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. Louis Pasteur. Lille, 1854.
>
> “Opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official statements of the Library of Congress."
> ========================================

-- 
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

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