 |
 |
> In terms of defining "Instance," rather than relying on a single data > element (ISBN or Music publisher number, or whatever) it would be better > to define an instance as anything that has a publisher and/or physical > format statement. -- The current definition already accommodates the vast number of things without an ISBN. An "Instance," as defined in the high-level model document, is "an individual, material embodiment of a BIBFRAME Work that can be physical or digital in nature." This definition may need refinement, but it is not so narrowly focused as to suggest that an Instance is - or even should be - defined by a single data element. In so far as an ISBN generally refers to a single production of a book, which often has a publisher, date of publication, and place of publication distinct from another production of the same work, an ISBN can indicate that we are dealing with a distinct and different Instance, or an additional "individual, material embodiment of a BIBFRAME Work." The preceding sentence is not an exclusive statement, despite how similar expressions I have made have been repeatedly understood. I've also mentioned twice (here [1] and here [2]) that publication information and physical details are part of the calculus. Indeed, they *are* the calculus for the millions of items without ISBNs or some other publisher-like number that might be an indicator of a different Instance. Cordially, Kevin [1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305&L=bibframe&T=0&X=577D873129134852EF&P=16539 [2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305&L=bibframe&T=0&X=577D873129134852EF&P=22548 On 05/18/2013 04:18 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > In terms of defining "Instance," rather than relying on a single data > element (ISBN or Music publisher number, or whatever) it would be better > to define an instance as anything that has a publisher and/or physical > format statement. (That may not be the only criterion, but I don't know > what the appropriate discerning data elements are for physical objects > and archival collections - perhaps someone can help.) This then works > for those many items without an ISBN (e.g. all non-books and everything > before the 1970's). > > This would generally create a one-to-one between MARC records and > instances for the transfer of previously coded bibliographic data, while > allowing libraries to create multiple instances where they find them > appropriate. A single instance could have multiple ISBNs, or none, of > course. Libraries adding copies where they consider the new Instance to > be insignificant could add the ISBN to the current Instance record or > even in their acquisitions module if it is needed for accounting. > > I'd like to hear from others, especially public libraries, if this meets > their neds. > > kc > > > On 5/17/13 12:24 PM, Ford, Kevin wrote: >>> What your potential users (who may choose to become non-users pretty >>> quickly) are telling you is that they have chosen this method because >>> they do NOT want to present two different options to users where those >>> options are not meaningful to the user. >> -- By "user," I take it you to mean "patron" (this is fine, just want >> to be clear who the user is). In that case, this is a display issue, >> and not directly within the the scope of BIBFRAME. Do I think >> displays should find a graceful way to deal with such a skimpy >> Instance? Absolutely. Is it within the scope of BIBFRAME to solve >> that problem the issue of UI design? No. >> >> More importantly, it should be borne in mind that this is first and >> foremost about data representation and exchange. The BIBFRAME model >> need not determine how underlying systems store, crunch, or manage the >> data. >> >> Kevin >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle >>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:53 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] What's an instance? >>> >>> On 5/17/13 10:27 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote: >>>> That said, we also recognize that the publisher and physical >>> description information in a MARC record with multiple ISBNs pertains >>> to only one of those ISBNs. In the case of a MARC record with two >>> ISBNs, one for the hard back and one for a paperback, a decision will >>> have to be made which ISBN the publication and physical description >>> information should be associated with. >>> >>> Kevin, >>> >>> With a record with this: >>> >>> 020 0805028188 >>> 020 0030018889 >>> 040 |dCStRLIN >>> 099 Mystery|aGrafton, S >>> 100 1 Grafton, Sue >>> 245 10 "C" is for corpse :|ba Kinsey Millhone mystery /|cSue >>> Grafton >>> 260 New York :|bH. Holt,|cc1986 >>> >>> There is nothing to say which is the "hardback" and which the >>> "paperback". In fact, unless you look these up elsewhere, there isn't a >>> way to know. (They are both "hardbacks" but one appears to be the more >>> expensive and sturdy library binding, both issued simultaneously by the >>> publisher.) >>> >>> But that's not the point. *This* is the point: >>>> This will result in some skimpy Instance resources, but that does >>> not invalidate the principle. >>> >>> What your potential users (who may choose to become non-users pretty >>> quickly) are telling you is that they have chosen this method because >>> they do NOT want to present two different options to users where those >>> options are not meaningful to the user. All of these "skimpy Instance >>> resources" will be deemed to result in poor user service. And although >>> there will not be a large number of these in Library of Congress >>> records, they will abound in the records of public libraries, >>> especially for popular materials. >>> >>> Now, you can argue that libraries have been wrong to do this all along, >>> and that may be so, but what is being said is that separating out >>> instances using the ISBN is not going to give libraries the results >>> they want, and those front-line librarians will be the ones trying to >>> help users navigate this. >>> >>> Surely there are other options. >>> >>> kc >>> >>>> Further, it actually creates divisions in the data where one would >>> want divisions. Depending on the scenario, an enterprising cataloger - >>> holding the paperback version - may discover a pre-existing Instance >>> resource based on the ISBN (and its relationship to the correct Work) >>> and record a fuller description of the Instance (for the paperback). >>>> We are very much aware of the cataloging practices in the past. >>> We're looking forward to a bibliographic ecosystem of the future, where >>> we hope to see a greater demarcation between things. >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:23 AM >>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] What's an instance? >>>>> >>>>> Kevin, what people are telling you is that there is a good reason >>> why >>>>> libraries do not create separate records for things like hardcopy v. >>>>> trade paperback, and they would not want separate instances for >>> these. >>>>> This is a decision that was made many, many decades ago. The data >>>>> that you will have in those MARC records will be identical for the >>>>> two ISBNs, which means that the record does not describe both. You >>>>> only have one instance description. >>>>> >>>>> kc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/17/13 7:27 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote: >>>>>> Thanks, Jörg. >>>>>> >>>>>> One very quick point: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do not rely on ISBN as a unique >>>>>>> identifier. >>>>>> -- Just to be absolutely clear, we're not trying to use an ISBN as >>>>>> an >>>>> identifier. Indeed, relating Instances that use the same ISBN is >>> not >>>>> even in our view at present (and may never be, for all the reasons >>>>> given about ISBNs to date). Likewise, there are no plans to relate >>>>> Works that have Instances that share ISBNs. But, if we have a MARC >>>>> record with three different ISBNs in it, as a general rule, we are >>>>> making the assumption that each represents a distinct Instance of >>> the >>>>> Work being described (in our records there are often two ISBNs - one >>>>> for the hard cover and the other for the paper back). Now, the >>>>> calculus will change if we can reasonably determine we are dealing >>>>> with a MARC record that describes a multi-volume Work, for example. >>>>> The three ISBNs could mean something different in such a scenario. >>>>>> *Per MARC record*, ISBNs offer a guide to splitting said MARC >>> record >>>>> into a BIBFRAME Work and one or more BIBFRAME Instances. >>>>>> Yours, >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jörg Prante >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:19 AM >>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] What's an instance? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> yes, I can run an analysis over a snapshot of our union catalog >>>>>>> comprising of around 4.847.212 ISBNs. It will take some time to >>>>> write >>>>>>> the code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Due to the official policy of the ISBN agencies, the reuse was >>>>>>> strictly forbidden - but the ISBN number pool is segmented into >>>>>>> countries and their publishers, which take charge over the number >>>>>>> use. There is no technical mechanism to enforce correct use or to >>>>>>> grant or revoke ISBNs by a third party. Beside applying the same >>>>> ISBN >>>>>>> to different editions, there are other cases. Some publishers >>>>>>> wanted to save resources and simply broke the ISBN rules when they >>>>>>> ran out of money (or they were rejected from receiving more ISBN >>> numbers). >>>>>>> They started to recycle ISBNs of books they had out of print for >>>>> many >>>>>>> years, hoping no one will ever notice. Or, publishers did not >>>>> properly file their ISBN pool usage. >>>>>>> For example, when publishers took over other publisher's business >>>>> and >>>>>>> their ISBN pools, there was no safe way of verifying what ISBNs >>>>>>> were already taken or not. ISBN was in active use as primary >>>>>>> identifiers in ISBN registers for no longer than 5 or 10 years. >>>>>>> It's giving us headaches for a very long time. Do not rely on ISBN >>>>>>> as a unique identifier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jörg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 16.05.13 23:54, schrieb Ford, Kevin: >>>>>>>> Is there any way to quantify, for example, how often >>>>>>>> publishers >>>>>>> actually reuse ISBNs in different editions (is that even >>> tecnically >>>>>>> permitted?)? >>>>> -- >>>>> Karen Coyle >>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net >>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>>>> m: 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 >