>I think it is a bit shortsighted to base domain model design on the
>capabilities of current user interface designers...

Agree.  In addition, remember data deploying domain model design should be indexed by Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, and major search engines.  The data should also be reusable by popular citation managers.

 Amanda Xu    
[log in to unmask] (email)

 From: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
I think it is a bit shortsighted to base domain model design on the
capabilities of current user interface designers. Instead, the model
should be based on common sense reality, no matter how inconvenient that
may be in the short term.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
> Michael Mitchell wrote:
> > So instead of the 70 or so options we have now for title (ca. 7
> fields
> > with
> > 10 or so subfields each) you'd be satisfied with a single mnemonic
> > input
> > box- "Title"? Or if not, I can't imagine 70 blank boxes or dropdown
> > boxes would be quicker for a professional cataloger than coded
> > fields/indicators/subfields. I thought we were going for better
> > granularity, not none.
> As has been mentioned in other posts, the sample form was illustrating
> the concept of labelled input boxes, not what an actual production
> version of such a thing would really contain.  Certainly whatever is
> used in real production work will have the appropriate granularity
> called for in RDA.
> If tools are created sensibly (I know, that's assuming an awful
> people who are adept at using MARC for fast input should be able to
> develop comparable proficiency with other metadata schemas.
> > The more I hear, the more I think this is a project to dumb down and
> > eliminate the professionals by institutions that are looking harder
> at
> > the bottom line than the quality of work.
> I've always seen the RDA and BIBFRAME endeavors as ways to create
> richer data, more efficiently.  I don't see it as "dumbing down"
> cataloging by any means; on the contrary, the aim is for "smarter"
> metadata!
> > I mean, LC doesn't even think
> > series are important any more. And don't get me started on OCLC's
> > business practices.
> I think you'll find lots of agreement around the world that the LC
> series decision was ill-advised.  But I am going to be optimistic and
> view it as an anomaly, not as a sign of future woes to befall us.
> There are still lots of NACO libraries still committed to doing series
> authority work, and what I've seen so far during the PCC transition to
> RDA seems to indicate that the program is still about high quality.
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> [log in to unmask]
> (847) 491-2939
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!