Print

Print


oops, typo - that's: "if it works best for catalogers..." not "catalogs".


On 11/28/12 7:22 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> If we're going with a one-to-one model between Work and Instance, why 
> not a "one" model? Admittedly I am a "unitarian" when in comes to FRBR 
> group1 and have long argued for a "whole" rather than a set of parts. 
> Remember, bibframe is the data structure, not the cataloging concepts 
> and FRBR is a conceptual model. If it works best for catalogs to think 
> in terms of WEMI I'm all for it. But that doesn't mean that the data 
> structure has to be divided into four parts -- the purpose of the data 
> structure is to store the data in a way that you can do a whole 
> variety of interesting things with it.
>
> Even more than unitarian, I espouse the heresy that not all 
> communities and applications will define WEMI in the same way (two 
> parts, six parts, a gradation?), so pre-defining it in the library 
> data could be a barrier to interoperability. Call a "work title" a 
> "work title" and let others decide how that fits into their 
> bibliographic view. Also, limiting relationships to a particular group 
> 1 entity is, IMO, a great danger to our ability to interact with 
> non-library data.  In other words, we can define our data elements to 
> mean what we want them to mean, but we shouldn't try to control how 
> others will use them or what they can link them to.
>
> kc
>
> On 11/27/12 11:51 AM, Eric Miller wrote:
>> Hi Diane, Philippe,
>>
>> In this draft model, the aggregation would be done at the (BIBFRAME) 
>> Work level. A set of collected stories, for example, would in fact be 
>> a Collection (Work) of other Works. Works are typed and a Collection 
>> is just one kind of Work. What connects these Works together are a 
>> set of defined relationships that create a Web of Works. The 
>> paperback (or hardback, or …) version of this collected Work would be 
>> instances of this Collection (but there may be other instances 
>> associated with the individual Works as well).
>>
>> Whats missing from this primer are more detailed use cases and 
>> example applications which help demonstrate more concretely this 
>> approach. I'm hopeful these will be made available soon. Nothing 
>> helps ground any model (and serialization, vocabulary, constraint 
>> layer, HTTP services, etc.) like practical examples.
>>
>> Diane, as you know no good idea goes unpunished ;), if there are 
>> specific examples that you would be willing to suggest that would be 
>> extremely helpful. I can't claim a quick turn around, but I'd be 
>> happy to give a go at representing these via BIBFRAME.
>>
>> --eric
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Diane Hillmann 
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Philippe:
>>>
>>> I had the same response, immediately thinking of things like 
>>> collected stories (single or multiple authors) and serial issues. 
>>> These are certainly fairly common in bibliographic metadata, and 
>>> were not well handled in MARC or MODS. The FRBR model, though 
>>> admittedly a complex beast, accommodated these materials, and gave 
>>> some hope that there could be ways of handling those kinds of 
>>> materials in ways that a machine could understand, rather than (as 
>>> usual) depending on the human user to figure it out.
>>>
>>> Diane Hillmann
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 9:13 AM, "LE PAPE, Philippe" <[log in to unmask]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Everybody,
>>>>
>>>> Colleagues have already expressed their concern about the vanishing 
>>>> of FRBR Expression entity in Zepheira's "BIBFRAME" model, but I was 
>>>> rather puzzled by this:
>>>>
>>>> "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and,only one BIBFRAME 
>>>> Work." P. 10.
>>>>
>>>> What about (FRBR) Manifestations embodying more than one (FRBR) 
>>>> Work then? Will there be something like compound (BIBFRAME) 
>>>> instances? Or will the aggregation be done at the (BIBFRAME) Work 
>>>> level?
>>>>
>>>> Ph.
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> Philippe Le Pape
>>>> Mission Normalisation
>>>> 227 avenue Professeur-Jean-Louis-Viala
>>>> 34193 MONTPELLIER CEDEX 5
>>>> Tél.  33 (0)4 67 54 84 67
>>>> Fax  33 (0)4 67 54 84 14
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet