On 18. September 2014 Karen wrote:
> > I see two different things here: One is cataloguing practice: In an
> > ideal world the cataloguer of your local library shouldn't catalogue
> > the local copy at all but re-use information from somewhere else, e.
> > g. by creating a holding and link that to the appropriate bf:Instance
> > (or rda:Manifestation or whatever...) _which might or might not be
> > part of the local library's database_. I'm totally aware that this
> > requires large changes in library infrastructure and that we're
> > definitely not there yet, but that would be true data re-use... The
> > second thing is how we build a user display. The information displayed
> > to the user can depend on the context (of the library and of the
> > user). A display in a small public library can take most information
> > from the bf:Instance, look at the bf:Work and figure out that there is
> > a link to the Russian original and create the text "translated from
> > the Russian" from that information. I see no need for the cataloguer
> > to create an extra note.
> Lars, I agree with much of what you say here (I happen to see them as
> one thing, but two also works),
> but 1) we do not seem to be designing
> today for that ideal. In fact, BIBFRAME seems to be very "local
> system"-oriented when you look at the treatment of authorities (which
> all get local identifiers); 2) we have to define that ideal before we
> can design for it; 3) it is quite possible that the ideal will never be
> achieved, so our design has to take into account the non-ideal situation.
I get your point. That said, Perhaps we need to get together and discuss our ideals so that we know towards what we are working...