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  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: bf:Title Was: [BIBFRAME] BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:47:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

It sounds to me like both of these examples do get at something the patron might want to do, which is distinguish between what a resource "calls itself" and what someone (like a cataloger) calls it. In that sense (just for this case), perhaps title and title statement are covered by a title that can be annotated with its source.

Bibframe currently has a literal-valued bf:titleStatement property on bf:Instances, and one question that could be raised is whether it would be better to use bf:instanceTitle allowing bf:Title to express its source.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 25, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Philip Schreur <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Two possibilities occur to me but they just open additional questions ...
> 
> Ah, patrons :)  I think it could be very useful for a patron to know that a cataloger made up a title so they wouldn't worry about whether they had the same resource or not, or if they had to create some sort of citation.  But if a cataloger added a note: I made this title up ... would a different title encoding be necessary?
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes data is just about the data and it allows me to treat it differently in an automated way.  In record days, if that record were coded as being conformant to ISBD or according to the PCC standard I might be able to infer the title were transcribed (and a number of other things as well).  But does this have any parallel any more?  Will we need to make more distinctions at the statement level?  In this case, if I knew all the titles that were made up, I might be able to treat them differently in the discovery layer.  Possibly generate a display (brackets around the title?) that would imply this.
> 
> Not saying that these are convincing arguments, just some of the things I puzzle about as we make this transition ...
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/25/2014 11:59 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Phil--
>> 
>> Thanks for this-- it helps me clarify my thinking. Perhaps we can "back up" even a little bit furtherů Taking your example of title and title statement, we can ask ourselves what the purpose is of recording this kind of information, or to put it another way, what do we expect our patrons to _do_ with this kind of information? What are the differences in the ways that a patron might use a title and a title statement? I think those differences will tell us a good deal about how we should record that information.
>> 
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>> 
>> On Jul 25, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Philip Schreur <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> While acknowledging the enormous difficulty of this translation, I'd like to add a +1 to what Karen wrote (I was starting to write the same thing :)).  And I'm sure Karen meant this as well but just to be more explicit, we need to make sure that the intention and meaning we had originally is still valid, that there is no better way of expressing that intent currently, and that we use the the most appropriate way of expressing that intent in the new language.
>>> 
>>> As a means of communication, BibFrame will need to find a way of recording the intentions of various communities and sometimes those subtleties make less sense outside of that context.  For instance, the distinction between bf:title and bf:titleStatement.  To me, a bf:title can be almost anything, taken from any part of a resource or even made up by the person creating the data because there wasn't a title.  Some cataloging rules require that you use a transcribed title from a clearly defined place in the resource (that's what the bf:titleStatement is for).  To a cataloger, this is a valid distinction.  Without questioning the validity of making such a distinction (at least not yet :)),   what is the clearest most appropriate way of making this distinction?
>>> 
>>> Philip
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/25/2014 10:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> Straight translations from MARC to [anything else] don't make sense unless you analyze not just the MARC coding but the intention and meaning behind the data element. (I covered this is in a code4lib journal article, to some extent.[1]) That some bit of data was broken up in a certain way in MARC is not necessarily meaningful in other situations. Title is a good example, and Thomale shows how hard it is to make sense based on MARC subfields.[2] One other example is personal author: the x00 field has a dozen or more subfields to encoding personal author data. In other MARC fields, all of that information is placed in a single subfield (because of the limit of 26 data subfields per tag).
>>>> 
>>>> 100 $aHamilton, Milton W. $q(Milton Wheaton), $d1901-
>>>> 773	$aHamilton, Milton W. (Milton Wheaton), 1901-	
>>>> 
>>>> Yet one of the biggest problems in translating MARC to [anything else] is that because the data has only been expressed as text strings, no consistency checking has been done on the content. That 245 $p could have anything at all in it, including Aunt Martha's apple pie recipe.
>>>> 
>>>> Developing a future format based on this data is a formula for failure, I'm afraid. Yes, we will need to translate our old data to some new form, but that is not the same as developing a new format intended to mimic the data of old one.
>>>> 
>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5468 "MARC21 as Data: A Start"
>>>> [2] http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3832 "Interpreting MARC: Where's the Bibliographic Data?"
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/25/14, 9:30 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>>>> +1 to all of these :) And to add:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 0)  http://bibframe.org/vocab/Title.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do we need a title resource at all, or is a string sufficient?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Having now for the first time taken a close look at bf:Title, I'm a bit taken aback.
>>>>> 1) http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleValue.html: "Title being addressed."
>>>>> 
>>>>> According to my deproliferation, I read this as "value".  And hence the actual string that's being turned into a resource.
>>>>> If there's a need for a bf:Title (per 0) then there's a need for the value.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the question is, if there is a need, is this the entire title or only some part of it that's being decomposed into the resource.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Otherwise ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is the purpose of this specialized property in the face of the bf:label that is available to all bf:Resources? What would cause someone to use it? Is this just MARC 2045$a in a new format?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes. Or is it $a plus $b?  Or does $b go in partTitle, but then where does $p go?  If we're recomposing, lets do it right :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.5) http://bibframe.org/vocab/title.html and http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleStatement.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> What about getting rid of bf:title and bf:titleStatement, and just using bf:label?  Quite independently of any other decision regarding titles as resources and their attributes.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  2) http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleQualifier.html: "Qualifier of title information to make it unique."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Working for the uniqueness of labels goes very much against the practice of Linked Data. The Title entity is already possessed of an identifier. If anything more is needed to ensure uniqueness, isn't something badly wrong with the identifier?
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1.  As currently described, titleQualifier seems to do more harm than good.  There's no example, so it's hard to tell exactly what's going on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this just 245 $v?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  3) http://bibframe.org/vocab/partNumber.html and http://bibframe.org/vocab/partTitle.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there any purpose to this distinction or is this just a case of MARC 245$n and $p being mechanically preserved? In fact these two properties have the same range.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1.  If partNumber is really a number (which I don't think it is, as $n can hold "Part One") then it could be xsd:integer. Can a single title have both a partNumber and a partTitle?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3.5)  See question about $b
>>>>> 
>>>>>  4) http://bibframe.org/vocab/formDesignation.html: "Class or genre to which a Work or Instance belongs."
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleAttribute.html: "Other distinguishing characteristic of a work, such as version, etc.."
>>>>> 
>>>>> These seem very strange to me. In what way are these properties of a title at all? Is this just a mechanical transfer from MARC 245$k and $s? This seems to be information that should be recorded on the Work or Instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In order and in my opinion: No, Yes, Definitely :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Same with copyright from Provider?  (Or better decompose provider back on to the Instance)
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Rob
>>>> -- 
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> 
>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>> 
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Philip E. Schreur
>>> Head, Metadata Department
>>> Stanford University
>>> 650-723-2454
>>> 650-725-1120 (fax)
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Philip E. Schreur
> Head, Metadata Department
> Stanford University
> 650-723-2454
> 650-725-1120 (fax)

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

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
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