Print

Print


Dear Bob,

Thanks for the early feedback.  I look forward to your thoughts once you've read the document more thoroughly.  

I wanted to take the opportunity to comment on or request further information about this:

> Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the
> division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I
> gather is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p.
> 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me.

I think it possible that Authorities (People, Places, Topics, Organizations) and Instances (as well as Works) could be seen as equal entry points and therefore not "continue the division of the database," but I may be misunderstanding you.  

Even as I write/read that statement, I feel like I am not understanding your point.  

Can you tell us *how* the proposed model continues the old model with respect to the "division of the database"?

Cordially,

Kevin

--
Kevin Ford
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
Washington, DC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
> 
> I haven't had a chance to look closely at the document yet, but it does
> disturb me that "a team from Zephira" appears to have, having thought
> about it for a few months, swept away nearly two decades of
> consideration by the best minds in the cataloging profession by
> apparently abandoning the FRBR model, as Mac points out below. I
> realize not everyone agrees with the FRBR model but I should think such
> a step should not happen simply because of a report from a consulting
> group. Sally McCallum said in her announcement that "like MARC, [the
> model] must be able to accommodate any number of content models", which
> is certainly true, but one would think that at least one of those
> content models might be RDA, which was the entire impetus for hiring
> Zephira to come up with a new model for us. Since RDA is firmly based
> on FRBR and DOES include provisions for describing and linking to
> expressions, it does seem inappropriate that the new model should not
> provide for this entity. I have a hard time seeing how this model would
> be any better a fit for RDA than the current MARC model.
> 
> Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the
> division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I
> gather is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p.
> 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me. In an ER linked data
> database we would have descriptions of the entities linked by
> relationship links.
> 
> Bob
> 
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form
> Authorities Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
> 
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine
> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R.
> Snow, 1842.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
> 
> Posted to Bibframe:
> 
> 
> >http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
> 
> 
>  Creative Work - a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the
> cataloging item.
> 
> 
>  Instance - a resource reflecting an individual, material embodiment
> of the Work.
> 
> 
>  Authority - a resource reflecting key authority concepts that have
> defined relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Examples of
> Authority Resources include People, Places, Topics, Organizations, etc.
> 
> 
>  Annotation - a resource that decorates other BIBFRAME resources with
> additional information. Examples of such annotations include Library
> Holdings information, cover art and reviews.
> 
> Are we to gather that RDA's "Work" is still a work, but that "Instance"
> replaces Manifestation, Expression is no more, and Item data is a part
> of annotation?  Will WIAA or CIAA be our new acronym, replacing WEMI?
> 
> 
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________