(was part of “[BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2” and “[BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Holdings as Annotation”)
Since Juha Hakala’s email (of 18 September 2013) several aspects of holdings have been discussed.
Holding is in BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 26 August 2013, section 5.2 described as an individual copy. Example: one piece placed on a shelf in a library with a call number, a barcode/RFIDtag, a copy number etc.
But this abstract model of holding information is too limited!
Libraries and library services need to represent holdings information on different levels for different situations (use cases).
A not covering everything outline of use cases:
- to represent all equal copies in one local library (example: ten copies in the local branch of a public library)
- to represent a overview of all equal copies in one municipality public library (example: 82 copies divided in seven local branches of a public library – and divided in copies on the shelves and copies not on the shelves)
- to present static information of summary holdings in a union catalogue (example: only library identifier and a code for stable (static) accessibility (loan/copyandloan/copy/no-loan))
- to present dynamic information of summary holdings in a union catalogue (example: library identifier and a code for accessibility (on shelf/on loan, but later delivery possible/not-for-loan))
- combined: equal for public libraries and individual for research libraries = Danish Union Catalogue model)
And after this the complexity of serials:
- Holdings on title level
- Holdings on volume or year level
- Holdings on copies level (e.g. with more than one piece of issue September 2013, but described as one entity)
- Holdings on piece level (e.g. three subscription of a journal with individual information about all three pieces of issue September 2013)
I hope with this contribution to have stated, that the Holdings model in BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 26 August 2013, section 5.2 is too limited and more work with this complex subject is needed.
The question about Holdings as a class of Annotation or something side-by-side to Annotation is for me not important. The important issue is that Holdings is much more complex than described in the current version. May be it will from a technical view make sense to make Holdings separate?
PS: This contribution is written after discussion in a Danish informal BIBFRAME study group consisting of participants from the Danish Agency for Culture, Danish Bibliographic Centre and The Royal Library. The group is not an official representative for these institutions, and this contribution to the mailing list is my personal view.
Det Kongelige Bibliotek
Nationalbibliotek og Københavns Universitetsbibliotek
Chefkonsulent | Adviser to the Director
Det Kongelige Bibliotek | The Royal Library
Nationalbiblioteket - Stab | The National Library of Denmark - Staff
P.O. Box 2149 | DK-1016 København K
tel +45 3347 4366 | Fax +45 3393 2218 | [log in to unmask] | www.kb.dk
Besøgsadresse | Visiting address | Søren Kierkegaards Plads 1
Leveringsadresse | Delivery address | Christians Brygge 8 | 1219 København K
EAN 5798 000 79 52 97 | Bank 0216 4069032583 | CVR 28 98 88 42
IBAN DK2002164069032583 | Swiftcode DABADKKK