Print

Print


Hi,

 I applaud Stephen for his analytical approach to BIBFRAME and the FRBR model -- thanks for helping us to sort this out!

Overall,  I have a general  caveat to present with regard to defining "types of work," which is to beware of defining things in terms of their carriers rather than their content.   That being said, I don't see a dissertation being a type of work, but rather a work that has some attributes that are different from other works.  Dissertations have an association with a degree and an institution.  Other than that, they  don't differ from other works, be they textual, visual, or whatever.  

Cartographic works might be a valid "type," since they present information within a geospatial context.  

On balance, though, I wonder what value there is in specifying "type of work?"  Aren't there just "works?"  At the FRBR Expression level, some works may appear in different representations from the original "work" but still retain some identity of the original "work."  
As a user, I am not looking to find "types of works," but rather a set of resources with certain characteristics (author, format, form, etc.)  I find "types of works" to be an artificial concept.

Just my 2 cents based on trying to get my head around this!

Louise Ratliff

Louise Ratliff
Social Sciences and Map Catalog Librarian
UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
Los Angeles, CA

P.S.  The Open Metadata Registry already has defined all of the MARC vocabularies.  I don't see why you cannot use that.  (I'm being naive here to make my point.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Newspeak

Let me begin with the really easy ones. :)

> Are these the sort of things that an RDA profile for BibFrame could 
> specify?
-- Yes.

> Are these useful questions to be raising?
-- Yes. Yes.

This may be a lackluster response but...: There are so many different avenues one can pursue on the resource type issue that suffice it to say it is easily one of the reasons we wanted to take a very deliberate approach.  The various opinions in the few posts on this topic already underscore how variable the possibilities are.

> Could the Types of Work be defined on a different level--less format, 
> more FRBR?
-- "Could" is the short answer, but we're thinking that a profile approach or some kind of inference-based approach will be better for identifying FRBR Works and FRBR Expressions from BIBFRAME Resources.

> must all
> BibFrame Works include the property Language, regardless of type?
-- No.  Nothing is mandatory presently.  I say "presently" only because I'm hedging not because I have special knowledge.  Something *could* become mandatory in the future but that's a detail that hasn't come up.  Well, that's not true - I remember saying at some point, probably to myself, "something - something! - has to be mandatory."  

> Could FRBR Work and FRBR Expression be types of the BibFrame Work, 
> with the latter taking over the Language  property,
-- I think that language (along with the arranged statement for music) is a reasonable way to infer a FRBR Expression from a BIBFRAME Work.

> Could
> Integral Work and Aggregated Work (another distinction from FRBR) be 
> defined in BibFrame as Types of Work?
-- Dunno.  I can see how it could solve some issues surrounding the distinction between the two types of works.  What I can say is that, so far, the resource type discussion has revolved around actual types of resources (Book, Newspaper, Painting) versus slightly abstracted concepts (language material, aggregated work, etc).  It may turn out that the two approaches are married, with the super-types being more abstract than their sub-types.  But that is speculation on my part.

> Can a BibFrame Work description
> specify more than one Type? I think we learned with MARC format 
> integration that exclusive format definitions can be problematic.
-- Technically, at this time, there is no restriction on this.  However, community practice might want to enforce such a rule that there is to be one and only one resource type per resource.  I can recall precisely one conversation that touched on this and opinion was immediately divided.

Personally, in past projects, I have found the restriction of one resource per resource type limiting and prone to cumbersome solutions.  That said, I can also see how the data world would be a much cleaner, more hospitable place with such a rule.

You're right to note that exclusive format definitions can be problematic, but the mixing of the two can be equally problematic.  I'm comfortable with seeing if the answer presents itself as the resource type discussion continues.  

As to your first paragraph about your interpretation of the vocab website all I can say is "fantastic."  You've interpreted it correctly and it's reassuring to know that the presentation is comprehensible in just the way it was intended.  Credit for that goes to Zepheira, which provided the design for the vocab pages.

Yours,
Kevin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Newspeak
> 
> I'm trying to understand how much flexibility there is or will be in 
> the BibFrame definitions of Work and Types of Work. Drilling down into 
> the explanations of Work and Types of Work I can see that in BibFrame 
> Works are Resources, and therefore can have the properties of 
> Resources as well as properties specific to Works,  and that Types of 
> Work
> (examples: Dissertation, Cartographic) include more specific 
> properties as well, in addition to the properties of Resource and Work.
> 
> Could the Types of Work be defined on a different level--less format, 
> more FRBR? Could FRBR Work and FRBR Expression be types of the 
> BibFrame Work, with the latter taking over the Language  property, or 
> must all BibFrame Works include the property Language, regardless of 
> type? Could Integral Work and Aggregated Work (another distinction 
> from FRBR) be defined in BibFrame as Types of Work? Can a BibFrame 
> Work description specify more than one Type? I think we learned with 
> MARC format integration that exclusive format definitions can be problematic.
> 
> Are these the sort of things that an RDA profile for BibFrame could 
> specify? Are these useful questions to be raising?
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --
> 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