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  August 2015

BIBFRAME August 2015

Subject:

Re: Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME

From:

Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:54:24 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

We're dealing with two different aspects of series information:  1) the series statement appearing on the manifestation, and 2) the series part-whole relationship expressed as actionable data (access points, identifiers, etc.).  LC (and some others) work with the former, and not with the latter.  There's no point of having an identifier for a series statement.  Each series statement is a unique thing in itself.  It's exactly the same as with the title proper and statement of responsibility for the resource being cataloged.  You absolutely do *not* want the string pertaining to this manifestation to end up relating also to some other manifestation; it is peculiar to this single manifestation.  I don't believe it's appropriate to have identifiers for any *transcribed* elements in a bibliographic description, no matter how much any of them may end up looking identical.  The statement "Series on cataloging conundra" appearing on Manifestation X may *look* the same as the statement "Series on cataloging conundra" appearing on Manifestation Y.  But those statements are not the same thing.  (I'm having flashbacks to studying Hayakawa back in college freshman English...  "Cow 1 is not cow 2...")  They are transcriptions of physical manifestations and each is unique, and they must not be identified as being the same thing.

Now, if we're talking about having a system go ahead and in the background take the *series statement* and use it to link up the resource with an identifier for a *series*, then you are getting into the world of authority work.  You are either forcing the cataloger to select from established identities (something LC has said they will not do), or you are going ahead and making a selection (or establishing a new identity) without the cataloger's input, which is getting into rather dangerous territory.

I'm quite baffled by the statement that RDA is not an identifier-based cataloging code.  RDA has "identifier" as the very first option for recording all relationships!

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 1:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
> 
> Kevin, and that's exactly why I replied as I did to Adam. For the
> purposes of data in RDF, the creation of identifiers is not the same act
> as creating an authority record or even an authoritative form of a name.
> You can create an identifier and 1) change the display string at any
> time 2) declare this identifier to be for the same "thing" as another
> identifier at any time. It is no longer a question of "indexed strings"
> -- those do not have the weight or authority that they have in
> text-based cataloging. It's something entirely different, and it also
> isn't a manual operation.
> 
> Consciously or not (and I suspect it is not) the act of cataloging
> creates machine-actionable data. "Indexes" exist for most words in the
> record, without the cataloger purposely creating those. Indexes also
> exist for any searchable strings or codes. Each index entry has an
> internal identifier. These machine indexes are not the same thing as the
> textual access points that are created in the catalog record. We need to
> move away from thinking of our data as "only" text strings. Text strings
> are not good identifiers, and are definitely not identifiers in a
> machine environment. We need to "identify" separately from human-
> facing
> displays, and realize that inside the machine identifiers rule. RDF
> means sharing identifiers, not strings. Our metadata is about identified
> things, not strings.
> 
> Honestly, RDA missed the boat by not producing an identifier-based
> cataloging code. Instead, our "future" cataloging rules were out of date
> with current technology before they were fully formatted as MS Word
> tables. A cataloging code could be identifier-based and still produce
> consistent displays. There's no conflict here, but continuing to focus
> on text strings while ignoring identifiers is totally out of sync with
> how post-analog technology works.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 8/10/15 10:51 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> > I took Adam's point as being that LC is not including *indexed strings*
> (i.e., "series headings" or "access points") for series.  They are only
> including the series statement, the transcribed part of the series
> information.  LC has abandoned the idea of making explicit links between
> the resource and the series of which it is a part.  Recording a series
> identifier is in essence the same thing as recording the series authorized
> access point:  you're identifying the particular work (expression,
> manifestation, whatever).  And if you have decided that you are *not*
> going to make that identification (as LC has decided), then you will *not*
> want to be trying to match the series statement with any "indexed string"-
> -and you will not want to be having any identifier established when there
> are no matches, either, because that is the essence of authority work.  LC
> has deliberately removed itself from the business of explicitly making
> statements about the authoritativeness, or identity, of the related
> resource; it is only transcribing information found on the resource being
> cataloged.
> >
> > Kevin M. Randall
> > Principal Serials Cataloger
> > Northwestern University Library
> > [log in to unmask]
> > (847) 491-2939
> >
> > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:30 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
> >>
> >> Adam, establishing an identifier is not the same as creating an
> >> authority record. In fact, your system today establishes an identifier
> >> for every record and every indexed string without you having to do
> >> anything. Identifiers serve machine needs and generally are not
> created
> >> by humans. If, rather than typing in a series name you type in the
> >> beginning characters and see a suggest list, that's all you need to do.
> >> There will be an identifier for anything in that list. And if your
> >> series isn't on the list, by creating a new entry in the list an
> >> identifier will be created.
> >>
> >> That begs the question of what happens in the future to what we call
> >> "authority records." My guess is that it will be possible to add
> >> information to any identified thing, and that more information about
> the
> >> thing (like alternate labels, beginning dates, publisher names...) will
> >> be added as people either come across that information or find it
> >> useful. Presuming that we share data, this works very much like
> >> authority record sharing today. Undoubtedly, there will need to be
> >> judgments regarding data quality, such that only those descriptions
> that
> >> meet certain standards will be deemed "authoritative", with the rest
> >> being mere "information." But none of this is directly related to
> >> creating identifiers, except that anything we want to "talk about" will
> >> have an identifier.
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/7/15 6:34 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> >>> Many libraries, most importantly LC, are only transcribing series
> >> statements from resources and not tracing them (i.e. not providing a
> >> controlled authorized form as a related series work/expression access
> >> point).  Is BIBFRAME going to require those libraries to reverse course
> >> because they must link to a series every time?   Will that force them to
> >> have to establish an identifier for each and every series, and possibly a
> >> preferred name/authorized access point for said series?
> >>> Adam L. Schiff
> >>> Principal Cataloger
> >>> University of Washington Libraries
> >>> Box 352900
> >>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> (206) 543-8409
> >>> (206) 685-8782 fax
> 
> --
> 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

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