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:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:00:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Dear Karen,

The use cases are not inclusive.  And, although I'd have to look this 
up, I recall noting that we had hoped that those in that document would 
engender additional use cases from the community.  I do not recall 
receiving any additional ones from the community, but I could be 
mistaken and I ask for the link.

Otherwise, if you have some in mind, please feel welcome to submit them.

The basic flow is as follows:

1) User story
2) Does it fit an existing pattern?
	a) If yes, which pattern.
	b) If not, what is needed to address this use case.	

The use case document does focus on query patterns more than data 
modelling issues, so if your use case has more to do with the latter 
we'll have to see where to go from there.

Cordially,
Kevin



On 07/28/2014 01:30 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 9:53 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:
>>
>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases
>>
>> only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my
>> count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second
>> question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.
>
> And note that NONE of the use cases mention linking to resources outside
> of the library bibliographic record. In other words, the use cases so
> far describe a closed world. It would be great to begin adding some open
> world examples to see if that changes things at all.
>
> kc
>
>>
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Shlomo Sanders
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> Every once in a while I GRT the feeling that there isn't agreement on
>>> "What we want to do with the data". The same goes for "Who is this
>>> representation intended for".
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shlomo
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 17:07, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/14, 3:41 AM, Thomas Berger wrote:
>>>>> With XML documents there was a distinction between data centric
>>>>> and document centric approaches, often characterized by the
>>>>> permission of "mixed content". Traditional bibliographic
>>>>> records somehow redundantly follow both approaches, i.e. you
>>>>> have "data" in MARC 100 and 700 and the same facts recorded again
>>>>> as parts of the text in 245$c. Especially in cases where the
>>>>> redundancy is not very high, i.e. when the form recorded in
>>>>> the statement of responsibility grossly deviates from the form
>>>>> given in the heading one would wish for additional markup
>>>>> linking the substring in the SoR with the heading or - like TEI does -
>>>>> embedding heading information in markup distinguishing the name
>>>>> in the SoR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now RDF (with string data types) enforces a strict data-centric
>>>>> view on our bibliographic situation which even in circumstances
>>>>> we usually consider as "pure data" fails to provide appropriate
>>>>> descriptions.
>>>> As I said earlier in this thread:
>>>>
>>>> 3. I'm not convinced that it makes sense to convert the entire
>>>> document that is a "bibliographic description" to RDF, any more than
>>>> I would want to convert an entire web page to RDF. RDF was designed
>>>> to surface the data hidden in web pages, not to turn the entire web
>>>> into triples.
>>>>
>>>> There are aspects of our data that are document-like, and I see no
>>>> reason to force these into RDF if they don't fit comfortably. We
>>>> need to turn the question around, from "How do I fit this into RDF?"
>>>> to "What do I want to do with this data?" If we wish to provide
>>>> users with notes about the resource, reviews, or handy hints as to
>>>> where to find it on the library shelves, there's no reason that
>>>> these have to be in RDF. If they are, it is for the convenience of
>>>> processing, not because they result in useful RDF (which is, as you
>>>> say, designed for linkable data).
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, I question the need to carry forward certain
>>>> practices, like reversing author names to the comma-delimited form,
>>>> which exists solely to support alphabetical order [1]. We (will)
>>>> have an identifier for the person, and we can have any number of
>>>> display forms. We need to re-think our data for the web, not try to
>>>> turn the web into a card catalog.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>> [1] Where I question alphabetical order:
>>>> http://kcoyle.net/presentations/thinkDiff.pdf
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 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