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:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:34:33 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

> 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.

It does nothing of the kind. What it illustrates is that as long as Linked Data is limited by construction to what is available in MARC, as you did in your example, it will provide no information that was not originally found in MARC. That is a triviality.

If a Linked Data exposition of bibliography is limited to data that is found in MARC, there will have been little point in producing it. Luckily for our patrons, that will not be anything like the case. 

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Apr 3, 2015, at 7:11 AM, James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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

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