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  September 2013

BIBFRAME September 2013

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2

From:

Juha Hakala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:07:11 +0300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (289 lines)

Hello Kevin,

On 19.9.2013 18:42, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> Dear Juha,
>
> Thank you for your helpful message.
>
> I think basically I am going to end up asking you to unpack this a little.  Ultimately, I think your email - and Karen's and Diane's follow ups - present a use case or three that needs to be captured.  Some have certainly been considered, but only in the abstract.  They need to be worked up as test cases and use cases in order to more fully appreciate any nuances that may surface.
Would this be a good opportunity to extend the scope of this initiative? 
More libraries than just the early implementers could participate in 
drafting of the test / use cases in order to guarantee that nothing is 
missed. There may be subtle differences in how MARC 21 is used in e.g. 
U.S.A. and Finland, and BIBFRAME should be able to accommodate all 
"correct" national variants of MARC 21 data (whatever that means). 
Otherwise we may have to tweak either the format or the data during the 
format conversion.
>
> Nonetheless, I still can't help but think that a lot of the problem is associated with the notion that a Holding-as-annotation is somehow *not* a stand-alone resource in its own right.  It is.  (I am also trying not to rehash the second-class resource bit, but I think it may still apply.)
My starting point was just the data model and its implications to 
application development. I share Shlomo Sanders' concern that if 
different Annotation classes need a different treatment in the 
application, that may increase the likehood of misunderstandings during 
system design and bugs during the development. Relevant and exhaustive 
test and use cases will no doubt clarify the situation.
>
> A Holding, in our experimentation, fits the Annotation model because it is important to know /who/ holds the copy *and* it has a local flavor.  This is a facility provided by the the Annotation model.  If a Holding-as-an-Annotation idea is rejected *but* it is still deemed important to know /who/ holds a copy, then I think we're splitting semantic hairs.   We'll end up with a Holding resource (just as we have now) that looks eerily similar to an Annotation (but it won't be, by formal definition, an Annotation).
When I read Annotation model document from data modeling and application 
design & development point of view, Holding still looks like a different 
animal than other Annotation classes.  I don't know if early 
implementers have some internal documentation which would convince me 
that the present Annotation model is OK.
>
> About your first paragraph:
>> If multiple instances of different works have been bound together into
>> a single book, they all share the same item record in our present
>> bibliographic database....
> -- Not only does this represent something for a test case but the paragraph represents a use case.  The question I see is: Is it possible to take BIBFRAME holding/item data and parse it into your current system's framework. I'm not going to say this would be a requirement (I've not been keen to restrict ourselves to what is possible today versus what is possible in the future) but it is worth considering.  It is worth noting that a Holding resource would have a relationship with an Instance, not a Work.  You mentioned "work" repeatedly, so there may be a misunderstanding there.
No, just sloppy use of English. And in general I have no problem with 
some Annotation classes having a relationship with a Work and some with 
(one or more) Instance(s).

The case I had in mind is a book which contains 15 otherwise unrelated 
Finnish dissertations from 18th century. We have currently 15 
bibliographic records (in the manifestation level) and one item record. 
The dissertations will be digitized, so in the future we may have 15 
BIBFRAME Works, 30 BIBFRAME Instances (one for each printed 
dissertation, and another for each digital surrogate),  but only two 
Holdings, one shared by printed dissertations, another by digital ones.

I have understood that the round trip principle covers cases like this 
as well; that is, all this bibliographic and holdings data can be 
migrated from MARC to BIBFRAME and back with no loss of data.  If this 
is not the case, it is important to know where the limitations are.
>
>> In a union catalogue setting, there is a need to share Annotations
>> which contain CoverArt, Review or Description. In contrast, sharing
>> Holding information would be counterproductive. The current practice is
>> to store in the union catalogue just the library codes of the
>> institutions which own a copy / copies of the resource, and check from
>> UC the OPAC circulation statuses whenever necessary. When UC harvests
>> the data from participating libraries, it would be necessary to check
>> Annotation and delete Holding information. Such filtering would not be
>> necessary if Holding data is not mixed with Annotation.
> -- There is a use case in here, but I need a little more about which system stores what information and which system is sharing what information with another system.  About the last sentence: whether Holding information is an Annotation or not, it still seems to me that Holdings would be "filtered," or at least specifically requested.  To make my point another way: you still need the Holding information (i.e., the Holding resources) regardless.
Organizations maintaining union catalogues may choose different 
approaches to maintain Holdings information, so if there is a need to 
cover the entire field you'll need many use cases.

We used to have just the library codes of holding libraries in the MARC 
bibliographic records in 9XX tags. The application did not do anything 
with this information. Migrating these codes into Annotations would IMO 
not have been necessary.

Our current Aleph-based union catalogue 
(http://melinda.kansalliskirjasto.fi)  stores the library codes into 
system specific tag. Using these codes the UC application retrieves the 
circulation status information from the OPACs of the owning libraries. 
Cumulative holding information is assembled "on the fly" and shown to 
the UC user alongside the MARC 21 -based bibliographic data.

When migrating this data, one solution would be to store the library 
codes into MARC 21 852 tag, and then into BIBFRAME Instance. Holding 
information from each owning library could be expressed as Annotation 
(or Holding).

> Returning to the need to work up an additional test case, we have been 
> working on a discussion paper about Holdings. Part of an early draft 
> of that paper included a bunch of base MARC BIB and Holdings records 
> (a number of them for serials) and a use case or two. In the interest 
> of exploring some of the issues surrounding Holdings, we took those 
> use cases and MARC records and modeled them as test cases, which you 
> can explore here: http://tinyurl.com/nn9jqso We'll add your bound 
> example (and Karen's and Diane's examples) to the test case harness. 

Thank you for the link.

> You should note - and I think it important that everyone recognize 
> this - the issues are still "open." 

I try to keep that in mind :-).

Are you planning to add use cases which will investigate the use of 
Holdings in union catalogue environments?

All the best,

Juha


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juha Hakala [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:37 AM
>> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> Cc: Ford, Kevin; Ulla Ikäheimo
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
>>
>> Hello Kevin,
>>
>> We have no problems with other Annotation classes, but Holding may be
>> better off as a separate entity in BIBFRAME data model.
>>
>> If multiple instances of different works have been bound together into
>> a single book, they all share the same item record in our present
>> bibliographic database. If BIBFRAME conversion follows this model (and
>> other solutions will not be practical to us), we'll have one Annotation
>> which annotates multiple BIBFRAME works. Even if this Annotation would
>> only contain Holding information and there would be separate
>> Annotations for other classes which by definition apply to single work
>> only, the data model for Holding would be different than the data model
>> for other Annotation classes which always annotate just a single
>> work.
>>
>> My colleagues were also concerned by the fact that Finnish libraries
>> may have hundreds of copies of a single instance of a work (students
>> are avid users of text book libraries). There may be hundreds of
>> reviews of a work, but describing them all is not essential to the
>> operation of the library. However, all the items must be described, and
>> the (circulation) information about them must be up to date. From the
>> system point of view, maintaining Holding data is different from
>> maintaining data in other Annotation classes, especially when the
>> number of items is large.
>>
>> In a union catalogue setting, there is a need to share Annotations
>> which contain CoverArt, Review or Description. In contrast, sharing
>> Holding information would be counterproductive. The current practice is
>> to store in the union catalogue just the library codes of the
>> institutions which own a copy / copies of the resource, and check from
>> UC the OPAC circulation statuses whenever necessary. When UC harvests
>> the data from participating libraries, it would be necessary to check
>> Annotation and delete Holding information. Such filtering would not be
>> necessary if Holding data is not mixed with Annotation.
>>
>> BIBFRAME model will eventually cover serials holdings as well. Like
>> item level holdings, they have significant differences from other
>> Annotation classes.  We hope that the possibility to creating a
>> separate Holding entity within BIBFRAME model is considered.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Juha Hakala
>> Ulla Ikäheimo
>> The National Library of Finland
>>
>> On 27.8.2013 21:57, Ford, Kevin wrote:
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> A BIBFRAME Annotation is a different type of resource than a BIBFRAME
>> Work or BIBFRAME Instance resource.  It is no less important (or more
>> important) than a Work or Instance.  An annotation resource is designed,
>> in part, to accommodate institution specific information [1].   The
>> Annotation component of the model reflects a pattern of description
>> that captures information about who made the assertion ("Library A
>> states it has a copy of Book Y signed by the author.").  And a Holding,
>> unlike a Work or Instance resource, is specific to an institution.   It
>> may have a call number that is specific to the institution, copy notes
>> that are specific ("Signed by author"; "copy has ms. notes by author on
>> endpapers"), etc.
>>
>> I see a Holding as essential to fully describing an institution's copy
>> of something.  To that end, all three types of resources - Work,
>> Instance, Holding - will be necessary and related to each other (or at
>> least I expect so 99% of the time).  The Holding, in turn, will relate
>> to an Instance, which will relate to a Work.
>>
>> Does that help?  I received the impression that you were viewing an
>> Annotation as some kind of second-class resource to BIBFRAME Works and
>> Instances.  That's not the case at all.  Is it different? Yes.   Any
>> less  important? No.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> [1] http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/#whatIsAnAnnotation
>>
>> --
>> Kevin Ford
>> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
>> Library of Congress
>> Washington, DC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
>> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
>>
>>             OK. I have great trouble equating a "holding" to an
>> annotation. A holding is an integral part of an instance and a work.
>> Cover art, descriptions, and reviews really aren't integral, they are
>> extra. You can refer to several million bib records in LC to see this
>> as you are unlikely to find any without holdings but millions without
>> the other annotations.
>>             To take this a step further, as I see it, a work really
>> can't exist, except in the mind of the creator, without an instance,
>> even if that is only the author's manuscript, and an instance really
>> can't exist without an item or holding, again, even if only the
>> handwritten manuscript. I really can't practically get to a work
>> without working backward from an item to an instance to a work.
>> Anything else is vaporware. I can't get into the mind of the creator
>> until the work is recorded in some way, once that work is recorded
>> there is an instance and unless I can have that instance in my
>> possession, as an item, I can't catalog the work or instance. The three
>> forms are integral.
>>             I don't see that holdings are any more annotation that
>> instances. Items should be core resources, not annotations, in my
>> humble opinion.
>>
>>
>> Michael Mitchell
>> Technical Services Librarian
>> Brazosport College
>> Lake Jackson, TX
>> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
>> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:44 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
>>
>> Announcing:
>> BIBFRAME Annotation Model -
>> BIBFRAME Community Draft, 26 August 2013 (second draft)
>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/
>> As with the previous draft (April 30) this is a work in progress,
>> comments and discussion encouraged.
>> Thanks to the BIBFRAME community, including the Early Experimenters,
>> for the many comments and suggestions, which have resulted in what we
>> think is a significantly improved document.
>> Ray Denenberg
>> Library of Congress
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>   Juha Hakala
>>   Senior advisor
>>
>>   The National Library of Finland
>>   Library Network Services
>>   P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
>>   FIN-00014 Helsinki University
>>   Tel. +358 9 191 44293
>>   Mobile +358 50 3827678
>>


-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor

  The National Library of Finland
  Library Network Services
  P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Tel. +358 9 191 44293
  Mobile +358 50 3827678

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

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