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:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:45:40 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

Quoting Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>:


>
> 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"...

The use cases that I've seen most commonly have to do with indexing,  
matching of records, and linking. In the past I've seen systems that:

1) index all "versions" of the identifier, all mixed together, whether  
"good" or "bad" vs. index only the good ones (less recall but more  
precision)
2) use only "good" identifiers for record matching, vs. use both  
"good" and "bad" identifiers for matching, but with different values  
and different conclusions based on: a bad matching a good; a bad  
matching a bad; a good matching a good.
3) I haven't yet seen linking, but could imagine a case for linking  
some but not all versions of identifiers.

I do see your point about the down side of separating identifier  
versions into different properties, yet I still see the trade-off of  
the extra step of checking the version for all identifiers --  
presuming that versions are uncommon (which they may not be). I'm  
wondering what is the experience of folks experimenting BIBFRAME  
today. ?

kc

>
> 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