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  September 2014

BIBFRAME September 2014

Subject:

Re: Literal Properties vs Notes

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:26:47 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

Ed, you're talking about RDA as conceived (at least partly) but not as 
implemented. I was talking about AACR, which is what informed MARC. 
Since RDA as conceived cannot be implemented in MARC, we're in a bit of 
a no man's land - we really don't know how we would implement RDA/RDA 
and not RDA/MARC.

Also note that although RDA does "allow" distinct elements in some 
cases, and even identifiers, it has not defined its elements in a 
machine-actionable way.* This is why there is a group working on making 
extent machine-actionable. RDA as a cataloging code != RDA as a data 
structure. And what always boggles my mind is that RDA was declared 
"finished" without any implementation plan. How can it be "done" if you 
can't use it to create the data the rules allow?

Your statement that "the fault is not in our cataloging code but in 
ourselves" should be "the fault is in our cataloging code and in 
ourselves" because "we" created the cataloging code.

kc
* The reason behind this was that the developers of RDA wanted it to be 
"technology neutral." But instead it is "technology blind." Stating that 
a data element is a date and must follow a standard date format is not 
favoring any particular technology. Yet allowing nearly all fields to be 
represented, optionally, with strings *is* a technological decision - 
technologically hostile, actually.

On 9/16/14, 5:38 PM, Ed Jones wrote:
> Karen,
>
> The fault is not in our cataloging code but in ourselves. RDA treats frequency as a distinct element (2.14), and requires a note only when an appropriate term is unavailable. The terms at RDA 2.14.1.3 correspond to the codes available in the MARC bibliographic format (008/18), and even more elaborate coded frequency data can be stored in the MARC holdings format. Rather, the proliferation of notes is often a result of implementation decisions, and these are often informed by the perceived capabilities of existing machine systems. For example, there is no reason that codes could not have been developed for the plethora of relationship designators in RDA appendices I-L, but instead we supply the terms verbatim (and in English) from RDA. Likewise with the carrier, media, and content types; for the first two, coded equivalents were already in existence for the most part, so the text recorded (in English) in fields 337 and 338 is often redundant with coded values already present in 007/00-01. I, for one, would be happy to see notes yield to coded data whenever possible, if only to save keystrokes.
>
>
> Ed Jones
> Associate Director, Library Assessment and Technical Services
> National University Library
> 9393 Lightwave Avenue
> San Diego, California  92123-1447
>   
> +1 858 541 7920 (voice)
> +1 858 541 7997 (fax)
>
> http://national.academia.edu/EdJones
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Literal Properties vs Notes
>
> Frequency is a good example of the mess that we have today in AACR-type cataloging. There is a way to code frequency as a calculable value in the MARC holdings record. That should suffice and there should be no need for a note field if the value is provided. But notes are "notes" because they are uncontrolled strings created by the cataloger. Where other data in the record are either transcribed strings or controlled headings, notes are neither. But the notes ARE required by the cataloging rules.
>
> This is evidence, to me, of the gap between the cataloging rules and the actual practice of creating machine-readable catalog records. AACR does not recognize that coded data (e.g. MARC fixed fields) exists.
> Many notes repeat information that could be encoded elsewhere, but because the note is what is required by the cataloging rules and also displays in the catalog, the tendency has been to provide the note but often not to provide the actionable data element. Obviously, it would be a mistake to carry forward this practice, and instead the actionable data element must be the primary source of data, from which user-friendly notes can be derived if needed. That "if needed" part is also something we should think about, because in fact in many system displays notes are not included, so catalog users rarely see them.
> Because notes have been favored over actionable data, there is a whole host of information that is 1) not usable for any automated functions and 2) rarely seen by users. Surely this is a waste of cataloger time, and a disservice to our users.
>
> kc
>
> Quoting Tim Thompson <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Having a bf:Note class makes sense to me. The current approach seems
>> exhaustive enough to be cumbersome, but probably not exhaustive enough
>> to capture the full range of possibilities in the source data. Not all
>> notes come from 5XX fields. Here is a sample marc2bibframe conversion
>> of a record for a serial:
>>
>> MARC: http://bibframe.org/resources/Jqc1410365115/marcxml.xml
>> BF: http://bibframe.org/resources/Jqc1410365115/bibframe.rdf
>>
>> Here, bf:frequencyNote maps to the 310 field (Current Publication
>> Frequency). Unfortunately, it also maps to the 321 field (Former
>> Publication Frequency). This would seem to be a not insignificant loss
>> of information. 5XX fields that are distinct in MARC are mapped to
>> generic bf:note properties (515, 588). bf:frequency doesn't appear,
>> but maybe it was meant to correspond to the 008 fix field for
>> continuing resources, which also has a value for frequency (position
>> 18). The need for two distinct properties remains unclear.
>>
>> In short, a bf:Note class with bf:noteType values might provide
>> greater flexibility and preserve more of the original semantics.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>> Tim A. Thompson
>> Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty) Princeton University
>> Library
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Y'all ready for this? ;) [1]
>>>
>>> When is a literal property a 'somethingNote' and when is it just a
>>> 'something'?
>>>
>>> I assume (lacking previously mentioned MARC to BibFrame mapping
>>> document) that all of the Notes come from 5XX fields, which seems
>>> like something that could easily be rationalized along with some of
>>> the other properties, again assuming they're not 5XX and hence didn't get the Note moniker.
>>>
>>> For example, these two look ... well ... identical:
>>>
>>> frequency: Intervals at which the issues or parts of a serial or the
>>> updates to an integrating resource are issued.
>>> frequencyNote: Current or former publication frequency of a resource.
>>>
>>>
>>> Current notes are:
>>>   copyNote
>>>   awardNote
>>>   contentsNote
>>>   graphicScaleNote
>>>   illustrationNote
>>>   supplementaryContentNote
>>>   dissertationNote
>>>   geographicCoverageNote
>>>   languageNote
>>>   temporalCoverageNote
>>>   creditsNote
>>>   performerNote
>>>   frequencyNote
>>>   note (!)
>>>   musicMediumNote
>>>   findingAidNote
>>>
>>> And the following seem like they're intended to be "notes" in the
>>> more generic sense of added description by a cataloguer or other:
>>>
>>>   frequency
>>>   custodialHistory
>>>   immediateAcquisition
>>>   notation
>>>   responsibilityStatement
>>>   providerStatement -- or are "Statements" transcriptions from the
>>> Instance?
>>>   editionResponsibility
>>>   contentAccessibility  (though c.f. schema.org/accessibilityFeature)
>>>
>>> Given the discussion regarding assigners of URIs being important, it
>>> seems that creators of notes would be also important?  And thus Notes
>>> could be their own class, bf:Note, with properties including value,
>>> assigner, type and so forth.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avcS0aYJ2a8  Warning: seizure
>>> inducing flashing, terrible animation, poppy 90s music, ...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Sanderson
>>> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
>>> Digital Library Systems and Services
>>> Stanford, CA 94305
>>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

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