Jeff, you often like to state "I am not a string." My mantra is "I am
not a machine." As a human creating metadata and deciding what elements
appropriately describe the item I am describing, there is no 303. I see
an identifier, in a list or in some documentation. I need to understand
whether that identifier is appropriate for the context in which I might
use it. That means that, as a human, I need some understanding of what
the URI identifies -- which can be the OCLC record I derived my copy
cataloging from, the resources represented by the record, both, or
something else altogether. Whether I include it, or to which subject I
associate it, may well depend on what I see as the semantics of that
identifier.
Now, admittedly, when machines process my data they may make other
decisions. This is, in some sense, the disconnect that we deal with
often between the metadata creator and the system. But I do think that
having the humans and the machines working with the same definitions
will make our metadata better. So the machine-oriented 303 is a
post-creation decision, and should be developed in accord with the
metadata creation community and the human users of the metadata.
kc
On 1/25/13 8:43 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Correct. The mechanism for associating "the thing" URI and "the record"
> URI is an HTTP 303 (See Other) redirect.
>
> Taking this a step further, stop thinking of the latter resource as a
> "record". It would be better to call it an "information resource" that
> describes "the thing". Variant representations of that information can
> be delivered using a variety of vocabularies and syntaxes that consumers
> can select via content-negotiation.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:04 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>>
>> Jeff, while the URI may identify the book, it is also the only Web
> hook
>> for the retrieval of the bibliographic record, unless you intend to
>> create a second URI for the record. The LC "permalink" (and I believe
>> OCLC's similar one) is a permanent link back to that record in the
>> database. The record is also a "thing".
>>
>> If you wish to define the LC or OCLC URI as "thing" identifiers, then
>> you (and we all) have to understand that it identifies what library
>> cataloging rules decided was a "thing." That could be a monographic
>> series, or a monograph in the series; a box in an archive, contents
>> undescribed; or, in the case we are discussing here, multiple bindings
>> of the same text. The caution here is that the library "thing" and
>> someone else's determination of "thing" (e.g. publishers) will differ,
>> and we should be careful not to declare ours as more than the library
>> view of the world. We are not the world, and will have to be able to
>> bend our view in order to meet that of others.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 1/24/13 2:38 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>> In the old days, LCCNs were "card numbers". When the machines came,
>>> they got upgraded to "control numbers". When Linked Data came
> around,
>>> they got upgraded to "concept numbers".
>>>
>>> <id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n88055112> identifies a concept.
>>> Likewise,
>>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/136259> identifies a book.
>>>
>>> String identifiers are buggy whips.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:25 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>>>>
>>>> I think Kevin Ford is referring to a case of distinction without a
>>>> difference rather than uncertain sameness. The point is not that
> the
>>>> paperback and the hardcover are the same, but that their
> differences
>>>> don't require separate descriptive records in the catalog. The
>>>> cataloged entity includes both, despite their differences.
>>>>
>>>> To reorient Kevin's example, suppose after a catalog record with
>> LCCN
>>>> is created, a publisher creates separate records identified by ISBN
>>> for
>>>> the hardcover and the paperback. Having the LCCN on both of the
>>>> publisher's records would mean that both could be retrieved by
> LCCN,
>>>> and both could provide supplemental data to the LCCN description.
> So
>>> my
>>>> answer to Kevin's question would be "both, in order to enable more
>>>> comprehensive data gathering about aspects of the entity described
>> by
>>>> the LCCN."
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I've found umbel:isLike to be handy property for situations like
>>>> these.
>>>>> Here's the definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> The property umbel:isLike is used to assert an associative link
>>>>> between similar individuals who may or may not be identical, but
>> are
>>>>> believed to be so. This property is not intended as a general
>>>>> expression of similarity, but rather the likely but uncertain same
>>>>> identity of the two resources being related.
>>>>>
>>>>> This property can and should be changed if the certainty of the
>>>>> sameness of identity is subsequently determined.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, we may not be able to assert that two individuals are
>>> the
>>>>> same based solely on current information on hand. However, there
>> may
>>>>> be quite reasonable bases or methods that the two individuals are
>>>>> likely the same without being one hundred percent sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> umbel:isLike has the semantics of likely identity, but where there
>>> is
>>>>> some uncertainty that the two resources indeed refer to the exact
>>>> same
>>>>> individual with the same identity. Such uncertainty can arise
> when,
>>>>> for example, common names may be used for different individuals
>>>> (e.g., John Smith).
>>>>> It is appropriate to use this property when there is strong belief
>>>> the
>>>>> two resources refer to the same individual with the same identity,
>>>> but
>>>>> that association can not be asserted at the present time with
>>>> certitude.
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:23 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>> ___} |__
>>>>>> \__________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
>>>> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
>>>> 160 Wilson Library
>>>> 309 19th Avenue South
>>>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
>>>> Ph: 612-625-2328
>>>> Fx: 612-625-3428
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
