Print

Print


 > 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
>