Print

Print


In re-reading the below, after it finally came through, I feel that I 
either misspoke or need to work on the characterization.

 > Within the BIBFRAME universe, the LCCN is in a different context and so
 > helps to identify something different than it did when it was in a MARC
 > record.
-- We actually haven't modified the meaning, despite its different 
context, in the BIBFRAME universe.  We use it to identify the MARC 
resource with which it is associated.

But, notably, we're not using the LCCN except for provenance purposes. 
In other words, we're not using it to identify BIBFRAME resources or 
descriptions.  So far, the BIBFRAME resources we've found ourselves 
creating (if even temporarily) have been given a new identifier 
altogether distinct and unrelated to the LCCN.

So, none of above is to say that identifiers are not being used 
differently in different contexts, but that my talk of our use of the 
LCCN in the BIBFRAME universe was not technically an example of that.

Yours,
kevin



On 01/25/2013 06:59 PM, Kevin Ford wrote:
>  > String identifiers are buggy whips.
> -- Right.  And what's important here is that in each example you
> mention, the context changed.  And the context of an identifier is
> important.
>
> Within the BIBFRAME universe, the LCCN is in a different context and so
> helps to identify something different than it did when it was in a MARC
> record.
>
> Warmly,
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> On 01/24/2013 05:38 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