Print

Print


Just wanted to strongly second Bruce's suggestion. As an archivist, I've
always had difficulty with the generally universalizing usage of the
term "bibliographic", the the stakes are even higher, I think, in our
rapidly converging information systems world. The "average person"
perspectives that Bruce highlights in his message are exactly the same
ones that the assessment and UI design teams at CDL raise on a regular
basis when discussions get around to how to display information from
various MODS fields.

Bill


Bill Landis
Metadata Coordinator
California Digital Library
University of California Office of the President
415 20th Street, 4th floor
Oakland, CA  94612-2901
(510) 987-0809
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] CQL Bilbiographic Searching Proposal

On 6/16/06, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is a reminder that the proposal for CQL bibliographic searching 
> is available for review, at:
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql-bibliographic-searching.html
>
> This proposal will  serve as the basis for further work, resulting in 
> a bibliographic context set and two profiles.

Ray -- if I had one comment, it would be that you clarify what you mean
by "bibliographic". Who is your audience?

Right now, the context set is heavily-burdened by library traditions.
In my world. the average person never thinks in terms like
"titleUniform" or  "namePersonal" and so forth. Indeed, if I search on
"bib.namePersonal" I would expect to be geting back a record for the
person, but I don't think that's the intention.

So if this aimed at libraries (as I think it is), then you should narrow
the scope.

Bruce