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  November 2017

BIBFRAME November 2017

Subject:

Re: 600 field with $t: what does the $0 represent?

From:

Steven Michael Folsom <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:39:09 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Osma,

I informally polled the PCC URIs in MARC Task Group, and those that responded agreed:

- With the presence of a $t, the $0 should refer to a Work. (The converter is working as expected.*)
o This would go for 700 $a$t and other fields as well.
- There should not be a URI for the Author in that field as the author alone does not represent the entire subject of the work as defined by the cataloger.  [The Task Group would like to promote a practice of not including $0 URIs that represent different objects from the (albeit implicit) objects of the “triple” in MARC. There’s a subgroup working on making clearer when certain subfields trigger different types of resources.]
o Just to be clear, if the text was about the Author (without a $t), a $0 for the Author would be advisable.
o If there are not URIs for the Work, there should not be $0 in the field. That shouldn’t stop the converter from creating one, but I think we can all agree stable/canonical Work URIs would be great. (

- *With respect to converters, perhaps when there is a URI in the $0, the converter should not assert a type on the resource. Rather, the RDF generated from the converter could just link to the resource, and not try to further describe it. In theory, the RDF description of the resource will include its own type assertions. 
o This assumes (as a colleague put it) the resource description isn’t too skimpy.
o I’m not sure if this is true, but would this complicate your work to use the BF converter output as an intermediary to create schema.org data? For things that already have URIs, are you creating schema assertions about them that require knowing, for example, that something from the converter is a bf:Work?

I hope this response was helpful,
Steven

On 11/27/17, 6:11 AM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of Osma Suominen" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

    Hi!
    
    I have a MARC record that references a work-as-subject in a 600 field 
    like this:
    
         <marc:datafield tag="600" ind1="1" ind2="4">
           <marc:subfield code="a">Agricola, Mikael,</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="d">noin 1510-1557.</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="t">Abckiria.</marc:subfield>
           <marc:subfield code="0">(FIN11)000103346</marc:subfield>
         </marc:datafield>
    
    The $0 subfield was added recently when we enhanced our bibliographic 
    records with authority record identifiers. In this case it represents 
    the authority record ID of the author (Mikael Agricola) of the work 
    (Abckiria) that is the subject of the work the record represents.
    
    However, when I run this through marc2bibframe2 it interprets the 
    identifier as identifying the work (Abckiria), not the author.
    
    Now I'm not sure which interpretation is correct. When you have a 600 
    work subject (with subfield $t) that has a $0 identifier, is it 
    identifying the work or the author? Is it possible to specify this 
    somehow using the $0 subfield?
    
    We don't have identifiers for works, but we do have them for authors, at 
    least for many of them. So we have an identifier for Mikael Agricola, 
    but not for his work Abckiria. I'm trying to figure out where to place 
    that identifier for 600 work subjects so that they could get properly 
    converted to BIBFRAME and the BIBFRAME data would include that 
    identifier so it can be used further down the line.
    
    -Osma
    
    
    
    -- 
    Osma Suominen
    D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
    National Library of Finland
    P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
    00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
    Tel. +358 50 3199529
    [log in to unmask]
    http://www.nationallibrary.fi
    

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

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