Print

Print


+1

On Tue May 28 07:28:27 2013, Diane Hillmann wrote:
> 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]
> <mailto:[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 <tel:202-707-2193>
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>     Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:34 AM
>     To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>     >>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing
>     HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>     >>    ___} |__
>     >> \__________________________________________________________
>     >>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
>     ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet