Print

Print


Two quick points:

In MARC, there's the 720 field that's pretty generic, intended to be used
when not much was known about the agent or it's relationship--a parking
lot, if you will.

For linked data, the ideal would be having a hierarchy of roles, like RDA
has, from the more specific to the more generalized, so that a very
specific role need not be used if the information wasn't available. I think
we have the tools and the thinking to do a reasonable job of moving the
legacy data forward, without necessarily labeling anything 'bad'.

Diane


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hmm. I kind of like the suggestion of a parking lot field, that systems
> could display as notes. LC has a lot of these "from old catalog" entries,
> that just are begging to be cleaned up, and putting them there tells people
> we know they need cleanup. I'm sure there will be other things we can't
> figure out what to do with.
> Nate
> -------------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> -------------------------------------------
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> Library of Congress
> 202-707-2193
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
>
> On 5/25/13 6:47 AM, Kevin Ford wrote:
> > > It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an
> > > authority.
> > -- It's not with the exception of one scenario, which I expect will be
> > very, very few cases overall: when it is impossible to determine the
> > role because of poor cataloger entry in existing MARC records.
>
> Given that there are tens of thousands of libraries using MARC in their
> local systems, only some of which are visible outside their own systems, I
> think it will be unwise to make decisions based on estimates of "very, very
> few cases". In fact, world-wide, we don't know how many such cases exist.
> Also, there are people using MARC whose language of cataloging is not
> English, and therefore they use different sets of codes or terms for roles
> (and for much else in the record).
>
> Once again, I wish our focus were NOT on transitioning MARC at this stage
> of the metadata development. I fear that we risk our future by looking
> backward, not forward. Honestly, just throw the "bad" MARC string into a
> "bad data" field and leave it in the bibliographic description. It is NOT
> author/agent information, it is bibliographic information, and should stay
> there.
>
> kc
>
>
> > This is the Bad Data example in the discussion paper.  I also
> > anticipate this will only ever be an issue during a transition phase,
> > meaning that, moving forward, specific "codes" or links will be used
> > to describe the relation of an authority entity to a work.  I also see
> > the scenario as a limited accommodation to be made during said
> > transition phase.
> >
> > If $e says "editor" or "author of," we can associate those lexical
> > entries with relator codes.  If, however, $e says "edtor" or "autor
> > of," we cannot necessarily reliably associate those poorly entered
> > lexical entries with relator codes.  This is why it is a limited
> > accommodation during a transition period.  In the future, designating
> > a "role" would be done in a controlled manner.
> >
> > I'm not delighted about finding data entry errors in our current
> > bibliographic data, but I can see that they are a very small
> > percentage all told.  Is a more elaborate solution required for such a
> > small amount of existing data, especially knowing we can improve on
> > this moving forward so that we do not have this problem?
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 05/24/2013 07:25 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> >> It is hard to fathom that role is being considered as part of an
> >> authority.
> >>
> >> The person, family, or corporate body represented by an authority may
> >> have any number of roles.  A person may be author, editor,
> >> illustrator, translator, depicted, or any other role to the work or
> >> instance listed in the RDA relator terms or MARC relator codes.
> >>
> >> There should be *one* authority per entity, and the relation(s) of
> >> that entity to the work or instance should be external to that
> >> authority, perhaps incorporated into the link?
> >>
> >> An entity may have more than one relation to a work or instance,
> >> e.g., actor/director, author/illustrator.  There should not be links
> >> to two or moore authorities for the same entity because of the two or
> >> more roles.  There should be one access point per entity per
> >> work/instance, with role(s) expressed externally to the authority.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> >>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> >>    ___} |__
> >> \__________________________________________________________
> >>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>