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  October 2013

BIBFRAME October 2013

Subject:

Re: The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME position paper is now available

From:

LAURA DAWSON <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:19:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

The Identification Committee at BISG has wrangled with this idea for years
as well. What we've come to conclude is that "work" means different things
to different constituencies. Each online retailer, for example, might
define "work" independently - because collocating and grouping is part of
their individual value propositions; publishers might have a more
constrictive view of "work". And librarians might have a still different
view. So rather than define "work" across the book industry, the committee
more or less decided to leave that definition to each sector.

Which is one reason why ISTC did not gain adoption in the US. (Another is
that it would group together editions published by different publishers -
who did not want to refer consumers to competing editions.)

On 10/3/13 5:23 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 10/3/13 1:18 PM, Godby,Jean wrote:
>>   But the problem with doing nothing is that we would have no
>>conceptual underpinning for asserting that some collections of creative
>>works have the same intellectual content ≠ a problem that publishers
>>have not addressed in any meaningful way. So we continue to look for a
>>solution.
>
>It has been addressed in a meaningful way, IMO, and the proposal is here:
>
>http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor
>
>This proposal allows one to "cluster" bibliographic information at any
>level of abstraction (from Work to Item) around having the same
>intellectual content (for some definition of "intellectual content").
>The advantage with this proposal is that it does not require the
>producer of the metadata to determine which is the canonical Work and
>which is the variation on that Work. It also allows one to create
>relationships between bibliographic descriptions at exist at different
>levels of detail and abstraction. A wikipedia page for a book could be
>related to an Amazon entry for a particular edition of that book by
>using "CommonEndeavor".
>
>The problem with "example of a work" (or instance, in BIBFRAME parlance)
>is that it loses meaning if someone declares the wikipedia page for the
>Work to be an example of the Amazon product entry. By doing so, you
>implicitly have defined the Amazon product to be the Work, and the
>wikipedia entry to be an instance or example of that work.
>
>I don't think that "workness" is a universal concept, and I'm not sure
>that even if we did define it clearly what percentage of the population
>would have the necessary knowledge to know a work from an instance (or
>example, or manifestation).
>
>kc
>
>>
>> All the best,
>> Jean
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>><[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Vladimir Skvortsov
>><[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME
>>position paper is now available
>>
>> Hello Jean,
>> That is very delicate but important matter in my opinion, to find right
>> balance between existing standard properties and new ones being created
>> for more informativeness.
>> Please note that isInstanceOf in the Figure 2.1 of proposed document is
>> essentially the same as standard rdfs:subClassOf, except for the case
>>when
>> Instance is a single subject not defined as Class. That is BIBFRAME
>> Instance. However even in this case we could consider Instance
>>consisting
>> of copies and define it as Class as well. It leads us away from bf: and
>> oa:, of course, but uses standard properties that corresponds
>> to ≥minimalist philosophy emerging from the Schema Bib Extend
>>initiative≤,
>> as I see, and it makes sense for me and creates no dubbing. Besides,
>>such
>> approach allows to describe any hierarchies ≠ semantic ones, like FRBR,
>>as
>> OCLC proposes, or structural, like Serials ≠ see for example my
>> http://www.rusmarc.ru/soft/bibframe_model.pdf.
>> On the other hand if new properties (in bf: or oa:) are defined
>>correctly
>> with correct references to standard ones, one can use them if he wants,
>> for example, going to use custom applications in line with standard
>> browsers and crawlers. Last ones would work correctly with such
>>properties
>> as well.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Vladimir Skvortsov,
>> National Library of Russia
>> Saint-Petersburg
>>
>
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>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

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