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  December 2017

BIBFRAME December 2017

Subject:

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

From:

Mary Mastraccio <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:43:24 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Karen,

There was a paper put out some time ago that discussed "subfield sequencing" as an option. I don't think it applied to a name/title situation (although it could be argued that it is as valid as a name/topic with free-floating subdivisions). The idea was that if each piece of the string could be linked to an authority then the $0 could come immediately after the part it validated. 

650 $a topic $0 topic authority $z geographic subdivision $0 geographic authority 

I can't find the document now. As early as 2010-DP02 references are made to subfield sequencing so it is possible the paper I saw pre-dates that.

Mary L. Mastraccio
Director of Cataloging and Authorities
MARCIVE, Inc. 
San Antonio, TX  78265 
800-531-7678 
www.marcive.com 

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 600 field with $t: what does the $0 represent?

I have this vague recollection of discussions regarding the $0 that it
could be repeatable, and that the $0 would refer to the immediately
preceding subfields. Something like:

600 $a author $0 author authority $t title

There is precedent for interpreting MARC subfields based on their
position within the field. I can't find this within the proposals and
discussion papers, however. (Nor am I saying that it would be a good
solution. I can see advantages and disadvantages.)

Unfortunately, I don't see anything in the MARC documentation that
states that the $0 refers to the entire field and all of its subfields,
nor that it is always placed after all of the a-z subfields. If that is
the intention it would be good to state that where the $0 is defined.[1]

kc
[1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html

On 11/28/17 2:44 AM, Osma Suominen wrote:
> Hi Steven!
> 
> Thanks for your excellent answer! This was really helpful.
> 
> Steven Michael Folsom kirjoitti 27.11.2017 klo 22:39:
>> 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.
> 
> That's what I suspected. Thanks for confirming.
> 
>> - 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. (
> 
> Right. I agree, this sounds sensible. So we should just strip the $0
> subfields (with author id's) from the x00 records with $t that currently
> have them.
> 
> Unfortunately this means that, since we don't have work IDs yet, we
> don't have any ID to place instead in those x00 $0 subfields and the
> work/author combination is only identified by the work title and the
> author name, but without specifying the author ID. I can live with that
> but it means I have to do some post-processing to merge these authors
> with the ones that do have IDs. I've already implemented that in my
> processing pipeline [1] but it means I have to rely on matching names
> even though I could in theory have used person IDs instead.
> 
>> - *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?
> 
> Not sure this would be helpful. If there are reasonable conventions in
> action here, I think the converter should also assert the type of the
> resource, as it already does. So 600 with $t should become a Work and
> 600 without $t should become a Person. I think types like this are
> helpful, and I use them as "anchors" for my conversion to Schema.org, so
> losing them would make the conversion much more difficult. In many cases
> I don't have any more information about those identifiers, so extracting
> as much as possible from the MARC record is good. I think not asserting
> the types would probably complicate other applications too.
> 
> -Osma
> 
> [1] https://github.com/NatLibFi/bib-rdf-pipeline/issues/77
> 

-- 
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

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