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:

Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:53:25 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (20 lines)

Clearly, all names are not going to be established to NACO standards. If I am understanding this correctly, there is an alternative between establishing everything in a formal, vetted vocabulary like NACO and just using strings. You could to give something an identifier using a local domain (one such as mit.edu/person/5005). Or perhaps some organization like OCLC could provide a shared space for unvetted identifiers. 

I think this what what Karen Coyle mentioned as the intent of Bibframe's lightweight abstraction layer (which I will have to look up again). It sounds like you would connect your work to a new local identifier and attach the string label (authorized access point) to the local identifier instead of directly to the work. It is then easier later to map that local identifier to a NACO one if it becomes available or to some other local identifier than it would be if you just had the string attached to the work. It sounds like there are a lot of practical details to work out, though.

You could also think of this as similar to local authority records that some libraries make even if they don't contribute them to NACO. I do agree with the comment about the symbiotic relationship between strings and authorities in that you also need to know what the name looks like on the resource.

Kelley (who is still thinking through all the other messages on this thread)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse

I totally agree with this. Any future encoding standard needs to support both "strings" AND "things" and not force cataloging institutions to use one to the exclusion of the other.

 For example, my library is part of NACO but we don't participate in BIBCO, and so we won't establish every name we run across that doesn't appear in NAF. Only if it's (a) an MIT-related person or corporate body; or (b) a name that will cause a conflict in our author file, will we definitely establish the name. (We will also establish things for a variety of other reasons that fall under the rubric of "cataloger's judgment", but these are the two situations where authority work is, a priori, required.)

If we were forced to operate in an environment where we did not have this flexibility it would definitely have a deleterious affect our productivity. 

Moreover I think there is a symbiotic relationship between libraries who record strings, and the libraries (sometimes, the same library at a different period of time) who will come along later and turn them into authorities. You sometimes need to see a name 2 or 3 times in the bibliographic file before you have enough data to establish a person with any certainty.

Just like it is important to record (as a string) what you see listed as the publisher, and not simply grab an "authorized form" of the publisher's name and slot it in. If there is no one recording these changes in the real world, there will be no data available to document what the variants or changes might be for the authority record.

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

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