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  April 2015

BIBFRAME April 2015

Subject:

Re: Linked data

From:

James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:11:25 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

On 4/2/2015 7:52 PM, Kelley McGrath wrote:
> We will have to agree to disagree. It may be*easier*  to get information out of MARCXML, but you can't get*more*  out of MARCXML than out of binary MARC. If you add things into a MARCXML record that won't go back into binary MARC then it may be XML, but it isn't MARCXML anymore. MARCXML gives you a wider variety of tools that you can use to interact with the data, but it doesn't address any other limitations of MARC.
>
> My problem is that I want information that isn't easy to get at. Or at least I can't find an easy way to do it. Can you tell me (via algorithm and not human eyes) whether the contents of 245$b are a subtitle, a parallel title or title(s) that are part of a resource without a collective title? Can you find the titles that are hidden in 245$c?

That hasn't been my argument. My argument is that you can't get more out 
of RDF/Bibframe than you can out of MARCXML, so long as you *know the 
schema.* This means that if a developer understands the complexities of 
MARC, they can do just as much with MARCXML as they can with 
RDF/Bibframe. Most developers do not understand the complexities of 
MARCXML, but they will be able to use Bibframe, which is supposed to be 
more accessible to non-library developers.

Concerning your question about various types of titles, parallel, 
subtitle, etc., if the information is not encoded separately, it cannot 
be extracted separately, at least not without some additional work. To 
see this in action, I took a MARCXML record with a parallel title 
http://lccn.loc.gov/94009455/marcxml and put it into Bibframe. Here is 
the 245 from the MARCXML:

<datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
<subfield code="a">Eleven short stories =</subfield>
<subfield code="b">Undici novelle /</subfield>
<subfield code="c">Luigi Pirandello ; translated and edited by Stanley 
Appelbaum.</subfield>
</datafield>

and the parallel title is coded in a 740, not as a 246 11 (which would 
display the parallel title note):

<datafield tag="740" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">Undici novelle.</subfield>
</datafield>

What came out of the Bibframe conversion was (look at the bottom line):

<bf:Title 
rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/YUI1428045287/1123585title29">
<bf:titleValue>Eleven short stories </bf:titleValue>
<bf:subtitle>Undici novelle </bf:subtitle></bf:Title>
<bf:Title 
rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/YUI1428045287/1123585title30">
<bf:titleValue>Undici novelle 
</bf:titleValue><bf:titleType>parallel</bf:titleType></bf:Title>

I saw that it did come out labelled as a parallel title. I wondered why 
so I checked the Bibframe site on github and found this 
https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/blob/master/modules/module.MBIB-2-BIBFRAME-Shared.xqy. 
In lines 3564+, (I won't copy the code), we see that it is digging out 
the equals sign which denotes the parallel tile from the MARCXML 245 
field e.g.

($d/marcxml:sbfield[@code="a"]),"=")

and if it finds it, then adds

element bf:titleType {"parallel"}

which outputs as

<bf:titleType>parallel</bf:titleType>

It looks like it works with the $b and $c too but I haven't tested it.

All very nicely done, but as we see, it can be done (is done) with 
MARCXML and is an example of something that is too difficult for a 
non-librarian developer to do. After Bibframe, it will be easier for 
others to take it, if they want it. While I see nothing wrong with this 
and am all for it, it is also something that libraries could have been 
working with for a long time, since the beginning of MARCXML. You don't 
have to have RDF if you know the schema. This illustrates my point.

 From another viewpoint, it is also important to realize that this 
represents no *additional access* for the user from what they have 
always had, because the catalogers have made added title entries (246, 
7xx$t, 730, 740) for all of these types of titles. We saw it in this 
record which used the older practice of 740. Therefore, the computer 
processing that finds the equals sign (=) does *not* create additional 
access because people have always been able find it by searching the 
extra title supplied by the cataloger. What the processing actually does 
is translate the librarian's secret language (=) into the words 
"parallel title".

I think it is worthwhile at this point to step back a moment and 
reconsider: all of this is for the user, or in other words, 
non-librarians. How do they understand "parallel title"? "Parallel 
title" is a very library concept, and not even all libraries have the 
concept of a "parallel title". For instance, the AGRIS model has 
different titles for different languages, English title, French title, 
Spanish title, etc. but not the precise concept of a "parallel title". 
For an example of how it is treated, see http://bit.ly/1xHtSoS where one 
item has three parallel titles, handled as three equal language titles.

In this sense, the AGRIS model has been more exact than ISBD-type 
practices and I think that for a non-librarian, the AGRIS-type practice 
is much more understandable than the more abstract ISBD concept of 
"parallel title". I have no idea how a web developer, who may not have 
stepped into a library for the last decade or so, would understand terms 
such as "parallel title", "alternative title" "running title" much less 
"work title" "expression title" and so on. Lots of librarians don't 
understand the differences.

To consider further, does the public need these various titles labelled 
so precisely, or do they just need the titles themselves? It seems to me 
that the vast majority of searchers don't understand these distinctions 
and anyway, they don't need these distinctions to find the information 
they need. They just need assurance that the titles really are entered 
into the record so that they can be found. Who cares if it's a parallel, 
alternative, spine or whatever title? Catalogers care. A lot, and for 
all kinds of reasons, but others, hmmm....

These are some of the issues that I have been hoping would be discussed, 
but it would take broad participation--not just catalogers and IT 
people, but public services especially, and regular users. People in 
other bibliographic endeavors who have different bibliographic concepts 
should be included. After all, everything is supposed to be linked now. 
That includes their stuff. It will take many groups to find out what the 
public(s) really need and want.

This is not the correct list for discussing these considerations, but 
they should be discussed somewhere.

James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

[delay +30 days]

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 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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