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: bf:Language and Parts

From:

"Svensson, Lars" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:07:07 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

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),

OK.

> 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...

Best,

Lars

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

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