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  November 2014

BIBFRAME November 2014

Subject:

Re: bibframe editor

From:

"Joyce E. Bell" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:54:16 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (73 lines)

Yes, the group was thinking in terms of RDA.  And of course the group has a long history with MARC cataloging which may be influencing us, but so will many who use the editor.  

For myself, I would imagine that when I approach creating a bf record I would want to start by looking up to see if an instance exists.  If it does, my inputting form would populate with both work and instance data.  I would add my holdings and be happy.  If no instance exists, I would want to look up the work.  My inputting form would populate with that data, I would fill in the data relating to instance and holdings and be happy.  Ideally somehow those wouldn't need to be completely separate steps.  If nothing exists, I would fill out the whole form.   If I see that the dimensions are blank, I fill them in.  I do not need to know they will be stored in the instance.  Shouldn't we be working to make something that requires less training and specialized knowledge to use?

I also think that the initial lookup for an instance could be better done by an ISBN or other identifier rather than by the aap.  Trying to find a particular instance of Hamlet would be really difficult.  I've always found name/title searches to be a nuisance if you have either a prolific author or a common name because you have to type the whole person's heading (assuming you know it) to narrow the results enough to find what you are looking for.

Joyce


-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bibframe editor

Were you cataloging with RDA rules? If so, do you have a sense of how an RDA workflow should look? (I thought it followed FRBR, which would be close to BIBFRAME entities... which is why I ask.)

kc

On 11/5/14 2:17 PM, Joyce E. Bell wrote:
> The testing group at Princeton looked at the editor as a functional tool for doing their work and provided a number of comments which are summarized in the text below.
>
> Joyce Bell
> Cataloging and Metadata Services Director Princeton University Library
>
>
> BIBFRAME editor
>
>
> Catalogers do not take well to the bibframe editor in its current structure.  Some of the complaints they have center around features which could be accommodated by local profiles (display labels, presence of elements) while other complaints are a bit more fundamental.
>
>
> Separating the input form into separate sections for work, instance and holdings seems like forcing the bibframe model on inputters when most (maybe all?) of this distinction can happen behind the scenes and the cataloger does not need to even be aware of it.  It makes sense for the order of elements on the form to match the order in which data tends to be encountered on material rather than forcing a cataloger to jump around following the bibframe model.
>
>
> Popup boxes are time-consuming and distracting.  For example: in the instance I click on "provider entity" for publication.  A popup box appears.  I want to put in the provider's name so I click on organization for the provider's name.  Now I am in a second popup box.  There is potential for yet a third popup box if I want to fill in the authority assigner.    By the time I click on that I have completely lost track of what I started doing.
>
>
> Why do we have a box for the aap?  This should be generated by taking data from other fields in the form. Since RDA still uses the concept of a main entry that combined with the title forms the aap, the editor should allow us to specify the name that is the main entry.  Doing so would allow for auto-generation of the app and less duplication of data.  [Or we change RDA?]
>
>
> Visually the editor is troublesome.  Elements are spread out requiring a lot of scrolling.  The labels can be very confusing.  When a data element is set, very little of it is visible.  Some of the elements are not repeatable yet they have to be set and then aren't editable without clicking them open, editing them, then setting them again.
>
>
> There are some bugs.  If a subject is mistakenly added as the wrong type-place, for example, when it should have been topic-it must be deleted and added as the correct type.  This is a far cry from changing 651 to 650.  The editor does not allow you to edit the lookup form of an instance title (and since you can only view 15 characters, you can't see properly what was chosen).  Are you supposed to go to the work lookup, which you can edit, to see the full data?
>
>
> Lookups for names or subjects using keyword functionality often makes finding the right heading impossible.  Trying to set the subject for "London (England)" I simply can't get that option to appear unless I type in "Londinium" which I happen to know is a variant name.  Lookups are also less than satisfactory when you need to view the authority record to choose the correct entity.
>
>
> The form structure is inconsistent.  For subjects, authors and editors the form provides a row of buttons from which you choose the type.  Classification has separate row for each defined type of classification.  In all cases the links lead to the same form no matter what type is chosen.  If any differences are hidden behind the scenes, why not simplify the form?
>
>
> LC, DDC and NLM classifications should have lookups.
>
>
> ISBN popups should auto-populate the scheme.
>
>
> The form doesn't allow for inputting of parallel fields for alternate scripts.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   

-- 
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

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