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  August 2014

BIBFRAME August 2014

Subject:

Re: Proposal to handle "Providers" differently

From:

"Lapka, Francis" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:57:20 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

An adamant +1 to all of Kevin's comment. 

I'd also like to note that there is a discussion paper in preparation that will propose adding elements to RDA for recording imprint data in controlled form (in parallel to transcribed statements). I would very much support this change to RDA.

Francis 
Chair of the Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials-RDA editorial team

_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672    [log in to unmask]




-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 11:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently

Joe Montibello wrote:

> Not a cataloger here, but this is an interesting conversation. I just 
> want to call one piece out:
> 
> > ...help a user match that which he/she may hold with what is seen in 
> > the
> record
> 
> While I know that's the reason for the current practice, that's not a 
> compelling reason to insist that bibframe (or any future system) must 
> do also support that use case.
> 
> > ...it would no longer match what is on the manifestation.
> 
> Are we trading the certainty of matching this string against the 
> (assumed) physical item:
> >>>>> Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1955.
> 
> vs. a different sort of certainty that might be found in linked data like this:
> publishedAt: http://dbpedia.org/page/Chicago
> publishedBy: http://fr.dbpedia.org/page/University_of_chicago_press
> publishedIn: http://dbpedia.org/page/1955
> 
> If we have to give up one of these, I'd vote for ditching the old 
> practice of matching item in hand to get the benefits of linked data.

This is a matter that was already argued during the development of RDA.  There are very valid reasons for having the rule to transcribe information from the resource.  This can be very critical in the cataloging of rare and archival materials.

Transcribed data and controlled data serve different purposes, and they cannot be substitutes for each other.  Neither is more important than the other.  Yes we need to have linked data, but not at the cost of losing transcribed data.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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 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