Print

Print


On 1/24/13 11:22 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and all
>> standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the manifestation (aka
>> instance), not the work.
> -- Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are two ISBNs in one bib record.  One for the hardback, the other is for the paperback.  Of course, there is one LCCN in the 010.
>
> If ISBNs are used as "splitting" points - meaning that two BIBFRAME Instances would be created from the one MARC bib record in the above example - where does the LCCN go?  Neither Instance? The first Instance created from splitting the ISBNs from the 020? Both Instances?

1) who says that the ISBNs are splitting points and to what purpose?
2) what is the LCCN but the identifier for the LC MARC record?
3) since there won't be "records" in the linked data space, why can't 
the LCCN be associated with more than one ISBN if that's the "truth" as 
LC created it?

Well, that was answering questions with questions, but my view is that 
the LCCN is an artifact of this era of library record creation, and is 
only "valid" and "unique" within LC's context. You can find multiple 
records in OCLC with the same LCCN, and that causes no problem. If LC, 
in the future, would like to identify hardbacks and paperbacks 
separately, then it can give them new identifiers. But if an LC MARC 
record has both a hardback and a paperback ISBN then it seems obvious 
that the LC record identifier is associated with both.

I am assuming that BIBFRAME will not replicate the bibliographic records 
of today, which is what LCCN's have been assigned to. I also agree (was 
it Mac who wrote the above?) that the LCCN today represents a record for 
the manifestation, which is what catalogers catalog today. There may be 
LCNA records for Works (and maybe a few expressions, I don't know about 
that), but the library catalog record is based on the physical item 
being described.

Actually, I find this all to be quite unproblematic for the community as 
a whole, since we've always had a rather loose relationship to LCCN's 
and OCLC numbers and even ISBNs. They identify what they identified at 
the time they were assigned, and if we try to change that meaning in the 
future for already assigned identifiers we will find ourselves in a big 
mess.

kc



>
> If the answer is neither or both, what is the role of the LCCN (or another traditional description identifier, such as an OCLC number) in the new ecosystem?
>
> Cordially,
> Kevin
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:40 PM
>> To: Ford, Kevin
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>>
>> Kevin quoted:
>>
>>>> Is there a theory beyond the mappings? In this example
>>>> (http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/BFbook.html), the LCCN is mapped to the
>>>> work ...
>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN, and all
>> standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the manifestation (aka
>> instance), not the work.
>>
>> I too am concerned by the omissions and mapping.  The bibliographic
>> universe is far more complex than Bibframe to date seems to assume.
>>
>>
>>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>    ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>>
>>

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