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: Annotations in BibFrame - Straw Person

From:

"Murray, Ronald" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:29:22 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

This is a "what's in the FRBR(IFLA) model often does not see the light of
day" situation.

The FRBR model makes a provision for "aggregate and component entities"
(1998, section 1-3.3), the use of which can resolve a number of problems
related to modeling multiple WEMI descriptions and multiple resources.

If you tell yourself that an aggregate entity acts as a "container" for
one or more component entities, you can then imagine separate and
overlapping metadata requirements for each type of entity.

While some of you are evidently good at holding many (many) triples in
your head and reasoning from them, I found it more useful to steal from
the physicists and use diagrams* to represent assemblages of component and
aggregate entities. First, see:

http://www.slideshare.net/RonMurray/from-mobydick-to-mashups slide#
138-141 for the FRBR-diagram connection.


Now say to yourself:

1. Each hollow box contains the relevant WEMI "aggregate" entity metadata
and the solid boxes contain component, or the "regular" WEMI metadata.

2. Then say that each box blooms out to a WEMI graph with a UID that acts
as a target for "attribute" nodes.


3. Finally, each link drawn from each box to another box resolves into to
a link between the WEMI UIDs in each graph that bloomed out from a box.

So if you have an aggregate Item-Level description that draws together
multiple component Item-level descriptions, the aggregate's attributes
(and linkages) applicable for all items can trickle down, while component
attributes and UIDs can link to item-specific information.


Ron Murray

-------------

* That slideshow is rather extensive, but can clarify a lot of modeling
issues, should you choose to delve.

The above aggregate/component strategy comes from faithful use of the LISP
computing language - so the BF folks should not have much trouble
translating it to BF.



On 1/14/15 10:30 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I don't think we've helped Rob, so I'm going to hazard a suggestion, for
>discussion.
>
>On 1/13/15 3:35 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> My objections are:
>>
>> 1. Annotation is not an appropriate base class for this, regardless of
>> whether it's a record or a real world object.
>> This is my primary concern. The thing with a barcode is not "about"
>> the Instance. There's no comment or body of the thing with the barcode.
>
>Create a third "circle" in the bibliographic area for curated "Item".
>This could be physical or digital. Every "thing" will be represented by
>an Item. This will essentially be the MARC Holdings Record. For each
>item curated by the library there will be:
>
>Item-level bibliographic information - bindings, provenance, special
>characteristics
>Item-level preservation information
>Serial holdings
>Identification of the holding library
>Additional location information ("Alcove B")
>Item location number (call number)
>Item inventory identifier
>[add what I left out]
>
>If you have 2 copies, you have two of these Item graphs.
>
>Complication I see: (I'm sure there are more)
>- It would be convenient to say that operationally every inventory
>identifier = new Item graph. However, in some libraries, parts get their
>own inventory identifiers (e.g. multiple DVDs in a case).That would
>split up sets. Also, some libraries barcode each issue of a serial.
>"Holdings" gets complicated pretty quick.
>- For a given library, this may not be the most efficient way to manage
>holdings. You could imagine a Library or Location graph that links to
>Item graphs. I suppose we could presume that internally a system can
>"re-graph" this based on needed functionality.
>- Item vs. annotation gets especially complicated for collections of
>unique items. In a sense, an artwork could be an item, and will have no
>manifestation. How far should we push the physicality division between
>Instance/Manifestation and "thing-i-ness"? (There may be no answer to
>this question.)
>- Nothing in BF helps us understand how this data interacts with
>purchasing, circulation, or other library/archive management functions.
>So it's hard to know if we've got what we need for all of those. It's
>the Item level that interacts heavily with those functions, so perhaps
>this needs to be thought through.
>
>OK, there's a straw person. Go at it.
>kc
>
>> otion of authority records, we should equally drop the notion of
>> holdings/item records and simply identify and describe what we're
>> concerned with.
>>
>> I want to be able to make assertions about books in the same way that
>> I want to make assertions about people, locations, events, and all of
>> the other things we hold dear.  Say I take a photograph of the book. I
>> want an identifier in order to say <photograph> <depicts> <book> ...
>> not <photograph> <depicts> <item-record> ... that would be a very
>> different photograph, likely of a computer screen :)
>
>-- 
>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

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