Print

Print


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