Those values came from a database of 38M personal names. There are
*lots* of names with no roles associated with them. (You should see the
complaints our database quality folks get when an author sees a role
associated with their name and suddenly realized that they don't have a
role of "author"!)
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: LeVan,Ralph
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
http://staff.oclc.org/~levan/roles.tsv
Enjoy!
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Role a nature of Bibframe authorities
Thank You, Ralph!
can you provide a csv of the full list (codes + counts)? then it would
be easy to compare to the MARC list to count the "unknowns".
kc
On 5/28/13 8:00 AM, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> Following in Roy's footsteps, I can provide a little ground-truthing
> here. I created a "roles" index for WorldCat Identities. It is
> browsable, as well as searchable, if you want to look at it. When I
> indexed it, I has a list of 192 codes and their full-text translations
> and used both in my indexing. That means I should see 384 index terms
> in that index. Instead, I see 1131 terms.
>
> Here's a pointer into that index at the term "clr". Replace the "clr"
> in the URL with other starting places. Replace the term with an empty
> string and you'll see the top of the index. The terms are hot and can
> be clicked on to get to the Identities records themselves.
>
> http://worldcat.org/identities/search/PersonalIdentities?operation=sca
> n&
> scanClause=%0Alocal.Role%20exact%20%22clr%22%0A&responsePosition=1&ver
> si
> on=1.1%0A%0A&maximumTerms=20
>
> Ralph
>
> -----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
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
