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
