Shlomo, I didn't intend to say that all authorities link to LCNA -- each
should link to their own authority file, but should link directly. All
of the other authority links should be between the local authority and
them. I used LC assuming the BIBFRAME LC view. I'll make that clear in
my blog post.
On 5/15/13 10:56 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
> I don't think the only way to add links to other related authorities should be via the LC authority records.
> What about Germany and other countries whose primary authorities are their own?
> What about adding links to consortial managed authority files? These too must be via the LC authority?
> Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 02:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Authorities: relation to library authorities
> I had to do some diagrams to explain what I see as the possible relations between BIBFRAME "authorities" and "library authorities, and since email doesn't work well for that I did a blog post instead:
> I apologize if this splits the conversation, and can echo back here any significant comments.
> The main gist is exploring options for the positioning of the BIBFRAME authority thing in relation to the traditional library authority "record."
> It needs some example code, but I'm struggling with that because code isn't very readable, and the more readable types tend to mask the triple-ness of the underlying data.
> Owen Stephens has given me an idea for a fourth diagram, which I will add if I get a chance.
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net