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  January 2015

BIBFRAME January 2015

Subject:

Re: What will things and strings look like?

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:59:07 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear Kelley,

Just some short notes (and questions) to one of your (very valid and interesting!) questions:

> PLACES
> Some time ago there was a discussion about recording the place of
> publication. Places seem to me to be an example of the best case
> for using URIs: there are comprehensive, externally-maintained
> lists at the level of specificity required (generally cities for places of
> publication). In most cases, it seems like just using a URI and
> abandoning transcription for place of publication would be
> functional. This wouldn't work for things like early printed books,

This is probably true if there is only one place mentioned on the title page, but what do you do with something like "Berlin ; Heidelberg ; New York ; Hong Kong ; London ; Milan ; Paris ; Tokyo : Springer, 2004) [1]? Are all of those really places of publication? In that respect early printed books are easier, because a publication statement like "published by Georg Moony in the High Street and printed by P. Albert Murgatroyd in the Lower Crescent at the Sign of the Lantern" [2] definitely refers to people (who can have URIs) who had offices and workshops that are so locateable that you probably could supply GPS coordinates for them.

> but for most contemporary materials, it would seem sufficient to
> make a note if there were something unusual about the way the
> name was presented on the resource (and does BF have a way to
> connect notes to the elements that they are describing?). From a
> practical perspective, the place of publication still needs to be based
> on the resource rather than being a characteristic of the publisher.
> Publishers move around and have offices in many places. Trying to

Yes. Nonetheless I think that an authority file with publishers would be an excellent asset (it's just a specific case of corporate bodies...).

> track who was based where and when would be a nightmare. Using
> URIs would have the benefit of distinguishing London, England from
> London, Ontario and London, Ohio.

Yes, that is definitely an advantage!

[1] http://d-nb.info/969977441
[2] made up by me, but I hope it conveys the point...

> NAMES
> Names are another area where we will make use of URIs.
> There are a great many more names than places and, although
> there are multiple external sources of URIs, there is nothing
> like the comprehensive coverage that is available for places.
> 
> What happens if there isn't an existing URI for a name? There is
> a cost to making a string into a useful thing and putting it in its
> place in the universe. The cost is lessened by eliminating the
> need to create a unique string, but it is not zero. Not everyone
> will be able to contribute to shared lists like the LC National
> Authority File. Not every name is worth the trouble of
> disentangling.

I guess this is a general case: What do I do when I want link to an authority file and the entity I want to link to isn't there (yet)?

> Will people just coin a one-off URI using their own domain? How
> reliable will these be? The advantage of this approach is that if
> new information becomes available, it's easier to integrate. You
> can just say that this locally-maintained URI represents the same
> thing as this NAF identifier and not have to mess with the string.
> If you start out with the assumption of separate until proven the
> same, this might work reasonably well since it's easier to merge
> than to split apart.

It probably depends on how your library data ecosystem is designed. I could imagine that when your cataloguing system finds out that the entity you are looking for does not yet exist (neither in your system, nor in the central authority file) it creates a temporary entity in your system and enters that into a workflow to have it added to the central AF. Once it's there, it updates the references in your system.

My two cent (€), 

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
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