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: Our darkest alley [Was: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:Title]

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:10:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (34 lines)

I've responded in-line to a couple of the excellent points Thomas Berger makes.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Am 26.07.2014 02:17, schrieb Tennant,Roy:
>> [snipped]
>> Semantics should not be embedded into text strings.
> True. As long as we talk about machine representations of something. When it comes to humans consuming that data the picture may be different:

This is such a good point. It's important to remember in our conversation about machine-oriented data that we expect to view it and manage it with the aid of software. The fact that some particular use may not be immediately available unaided from it is not, in and of itself, a problem.

> "Thomas Mann's Zauberberg" or "Der Zauberberg / by Th[omas] Mann" usually give sufficient information without bothering us with labels like "title proper" or "statement of responsibility" which I'm forced to understand first and match against my internal concepts secondly, thirdly concluding that they are compatible enough or don't fully understand and don't care anyway.

This sounds like very bad software, which does not do a good job of creating a human-appropriate representation from machine-orineted data. Using screen labels like "title proper" without at least supplying context and assistance does sound confusing. But it doesn't seem to me to say anything about how well or poorly the machine-oriented data is designed.

> Also <gndo:forename>Zedong</gndo:forename><gndo:surname>MaĆ­</gndo:surname> does not imply any order or prescribes a delimiter, therefore a variantNameForThePerson cannot be constructed from a variantNameEntityForThePerson (at least without additional rules to be known by applications).

I think this is often a good thing. It seems to me that the order (and possibly the delimiter, space, or comma, or something else) must be based on the language in which the names are being displayed, and perhaps the state of the UI displaying them. Perhaps variantNameForThePerson is not the constant quality of a resource it might appear to be, but instead a function of several things. Of course, if you really want to encode an order, another approach would be to use ordering structures in RDF. Those are not often very pleasant, but they work. In any event, your larger point about the difficulty of representing some things in RDF is well-taken.

> Thus like in the TEI scenario a bf:responsibilityStatement should allow internal structure (i.e. arbitrary XML) able to insulate and annotate forms of names, and furthermore should link this name to the person referenced by the name -preferably to resource-specific statements about this person.

I'm not sure I follow this. If the claim is that the sort of information in a responsibility statement is too complex for it to be obvious to us right now how it should be done in Bibframe, why would the solution be to include arbitrary complexity in Bibframe data? If responsibility statements are complex, can't we treat with them as entities in their own right? Wouldn't it be better to keep the Bibframe data simple and lightweight and let bf:responsibilityStatement be a link to some other kind of representation? For example, I might digitize a photograph of a copyright notice page, you might work up a stanza of TEI, and someone else might do something entirely different. If I understand the purpose of the responsibility statement correctly (and I welcome correction) it is to record the parties responsible for the resource described based on evidence from that resource.

An objection might be that in this scenario, it is only possible to do very little processing on the resources linked by bf:responsibilityStatement. I accept that, but I'm not sure to what extent it is necessary to process them. I mean that literally-- I accept that it is necessary to process them, but I'm not sure how much, and I don't understand how to answer that question without discussing what functions this information is meant to supply to patrons. This is why I think a point made by Karen Coyle and others is so very important: translating MARC (or RDA) structures into RDF is not going to work here. It's necessary to return at least to the underlying "intention and meaning behind the data element". As I wrote in an earlier message, better even to return all the way back to ask what purpose the data are meant to serve for a patron.

> 1. Our evidence fragment "Th. Mann" resides on manifestation level,  but creators and contributors are work- or expression  level elements: Therefore we cannot even think of  embedding the bf:creator statement within the arbitrary XML within the bf:responsibilityStatement

Bibframe makes bf:creator available for instances (sensibly, it seems to me). Or is the problem to which you are referring the lack of a class corresponding specifically to the notion of a manifestation?

-as

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

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