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  September 2015

BIBFRAME September 2015

Subject:

Re: Identifier proposal

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:51:54 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (90 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 09.09.2015 um 08:51 schrieb Karen Coyle:
> At the moment, BF has a property for "identifierStatus", presumably to
> carry the information that is now in the MARC $z of many identifier fi
elds.
> $z - Canceled/invalid
> 
> In the serials area it is more complex, as the ISSN has:
> 
> $m - Canceled ISSN-L (R)
> $y - Incorrect ISSN (R)
> $z - Canceled ISSN (R)
> 
> 
> As a qualifier on the identifier, this means that many uses of the
> identifier need to check the qualifier to see if the identifier is val
id
> because they will only want to operate on valid identifiers (e.g. for
> linking). That strikes me as a bad idea, especially since the vast
> majority will be valid.
> 
> Another option is to treat the invalid/etc. identifiers as separate
> properties, with their own relationship to the entity identified, or
> with a relationship to a specific identifier. (The MARC format
> unfortunately tends to have in the same field subfields that qualify t
he
> focus of the cataloging (the book, the journal) and subfields that
> qualify or relate to other subfields in the field. So one has to decid
e
> whether the ISSN-L has a direct relationship to the ISSN or has a dire
ct
> relationship to the serial, and the same for invalid and canceled
> identifiers. )

I had to look it up in the ISSN manual: There are two situations where
a "cancelled ISSN" occurs (certain kinds of splits and merges) and
there also are "deleted ISSNs" (the agency deletes the record because it
was decided to be not on topic for the registry however other places
still might proliferate an associated record carrying this identifier -
who would know that?). For cancelled ISSN-L the manual refers to its
section about ISSN-L but there is no mention of it. Since off-hand I
can think of two different interpretations it must be left to
further investigation whether cancellation as such can be considered an
orthogonal additional property applicable to ISSN and ISSN-L or if
there is "cancelled ISSN" as a property for ISSN and "cancelled ISSN-L"
as a property for ISSN-L (see how we start reverse-engeneering the
ISSN specification because we want to decide if and how some more
abstract paradigms of operating a registry might apply to ISSNs?
)

Other identifier systems might "support" identifiers which are declared
obsolete in a different way and one could rather interpret them as
divided in "preferred" and "deprecated" ones.

So qualification of identifiers is very specific to the rules governing
the identifier system in question, and like the identifier itself should
not be questioned by Bibframe (i.e. must be transported faithfully
and especially without remodeling), and interpretation of that
qualification probably must always be left to applications.

Providing alternative properties or a fixed vocabulary for "cases" in BF
will probabliy only create friction: Different providers will encode
the same situation in different ways, since mapping of the rules of
the identifier system to a bibframe identifier typology will very much
depend on interpretation.

Perhaps one could add bibframe:meta-qualifiers where the provider of
the data can declare one identifier as being "best" to his knowledge.
Another processing expectation would be that any unqualified
identifier should be considered "valid" and "best"...

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlXv5RkACgkQYhMlmJ6W47MfpgQAu/jng824n3pt8xDckxNmZegS
aervYzdoAk0Jd6GW3Bo3r1WgiBayD2ZwbH6Q+epnWFCaaC8Hr1qOkDgvfAcyHBy8
qvHTEOQL2uk/iCmWFsd4jxtLwFYF6RYnxcrLRvX58AENMVSSRuSsVafKd14kNShF
SUhJawti0F41n7eDbBo=
=1VF2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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