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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: Proposal to handle "Providers" differently

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:57:54 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Comments in line....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
>
> Kevin,
>
> Removing these layers between the subject and the description would
> simplify use of the data, IMO. In particular, anyplace where one can NOT use
> a blank node there is a gain in ease of use.
>
> Unfortunately, this is possible input from the AACRs and RDA:
> 260
> ##$aParis :$bGauthier-Villars ;$aChicago :$bUniversity of Chicago
> Press,$c1955.
>
> e.g. Paris : Gauthier-Villars; Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Yeah, I knew this would come up pretty quick.

>
> That could logically be expressed as two separate publication statements (I
> assume the current display form harks back to limited space on cards):
>
> Paris : Gauthier-Villars, 1955.
> Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1955.
>
> As simple triples, though, there is nothing to retain the connection between
> the individual places and the publishers since there is no order inherent
> between triples.
>
> x bf:publisher "Gauther-Villars" .
> x bf:publisher "University of Chicago Press" .
> x bf:date "1955" .
> x bf:pubPlace "Chicago" .
> x bf:pubPlace "Paris" .

This is absolutely one way to handle this problem. It's ambiguous no doubt, but I would hope the publicationStatement to capture the details "as they appear on the source of information," or whatever the phrase is. The "publicationStatement" would provide the transcribed view while the above would be for data purposes only.

>
> (NB: this is not the only place in our data that repetition of data elements and
> the reliance on the order of elements creates difficulties. That is another
> reason to do some re-thinking of our data in light of new technologies.)
>
> We struggled with this when developing the RDF for RDA, and I don't think
> that there is (yet) a solution that works well in practice.

Agreed, but to some extent our options are limited and there may only be imperfect solutions. I'm open to them all, however.

> RDA retains the
> concept of "publisher statement" that is conceived of as a single multi-part
> description. Thus, in RDF the RDA "publisher statement" would be a node
> with place, publisher and date. The complex statement above could be two
> different nodes and that would solve the issue of connecting places and
> publishers (while relying on UI developers to provide the traditional display),
> but means creating a publisher node like the one BIBFRAME has today.
> Assigning those nodes identifiers doesn't really make them re-usable,
> though, as you point out.

All good points.

Yours,
Kevin


>
> Given that BIBFRAME has a property for the display form of the "publisher
> statement," it may come down to a question of purpose: apart from display,
> what do we anticipate doing with places and providers, and do those
> functions (e.g. search, linking to maps, creating timelines) require us to
> maintain the proper place/provider relationship when there is more than
> one?
>
> My 2 cents is that this is one of those areas where separating display from
> data could have some practical advantages. Your solution provides both.
>
> kc
>
> p.s. This gives me additional respect for the document + data method, which
> relies on the document for structure and display, and still surfaces useful
> data. See how WorldCat does this with schema.org -
> http://www.worldcat.org/title/taken-at-the-flood/oclc/11056656.)
> On 7/31/14, 9:50 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Recording "Provider" information, such as who published, produced,
> manufactured, or distributed something, where that happened, and when, is
> presently modelled in such a way that a resource is devoted to this
> information. An example:
>
> <http://example.org/1> a bf:Instance,
> bf:publication [
> a bf:Provider ;
> bf:providerDate "1966" ;
> bf:providerName [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Hamlyn" ] ;
> bf:providerPlace [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ]
> ] .
>
> In the above, the resource employs a blank node, but it would not need to.
> Regardless, this approach has a couple of significant problems:
>
> 1) Semantically, "providerDate" is unclear because it is actually supposed to
> convey the "publication date." And the (publication) date, in fact, is an
> attribute of the Instance (the manifestation basically) and not the "Provider"
> resource. (And simply bf:provider would be better than bf:providerName,
> but that is a small point.)
>
> 2) It is not very reusable. The above bf:Provider is only applicable to things
> published by Hamlyn in London in 1966.
>
> We'd like to explore simplifying how this information is handled in bibframe
> by eliminating the bf:Provider resource altogether and creating
> 12 properties, 3 each for publisher, manufacturer, distributor, and producer,
> all of which represent the major use cases as has long been expressible in
> MARC. These properties would be associated directly with the Instance. As
> an example, the above would become:
>
> <http://example.org/1> a bf:Instance,
> bf:publishedBy [ a bf:Organization ; bf:label "Hamlyn" ] ;
> bf:publishedAt [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ] ;
> bf:publishedOn "1966" .
>
> You can imagine 3 each for manufactured*, distributed*, produced*.
>
> This would clarify the semantics and do away with a resource that would
> probably often be identified via a blank node because it is reusable in only
> fairly specific circumstances. (The above solution does not preclude being
> able determine all the things published by Hamlyn in London in 1966, if that is
> of specific interest.)
>
> FYI: There has been no discussion whether bf:providerStatement would
> change in any way, and I see no reason for it to change (except, perhaps, to
> add publisherStatement, distributorStatement, etc. for clarity and parity
> purposes, versus the one catch-all providerStatement).
> bf:providerStatement is really designed to address the transcription aspect
> expected in RDA whereas the proposed properties are designed to capture
> more structured data. It's an undesirable duplication, but it is what it is.
>
> Can anyone foresee issues with this approach?
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin Ford
> Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress
> Washington, DC
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

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