 |
 |
On 07/05/2013 15:28, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Presuming that the underlying data format will be RDF triples, that does >not change the cataloger view of creating a prescribed "complete >description." In fact, catalogers may be no more aware of the triples >than I am of the individual packets that will carry this email across >the network. The job of the cataloger is to describe resources, not to >create RDF triples. The library conventions provide the cataloger with a >set of rules for creating a compliant description. In addition, it is >hoped that any future cataloger interface will represent the cataloger's >view of the description to be created. Here here! ~Richard. > >kc > > >On 5/6/13 12:43 PM, Francisca Hernandez wrote: >> Yes, in RDF no need for records. But what about to catalogue a book. >> >> How many triples do the cataloguer have in mind? How many data models. >>Cataloguing is easier if you think in a record (and some distilled >>rules) than in a lot of triples (much more triples if you have to think >>in different data models). Sorry if I'am not expressing that properly. >>Iam very confused about so many harmonization (CRM to FRBR, FRBRoo to >>EDM, Bibframe to CRM, CRM to EAD...) It seems like the MARC >>Harmonization of the end of 90's. I understand them more or less, not >>always, but I am not able to explain this to a cataloguer without skills >>in RDF, that are majority. Yes, I suppose the software will do. >> >> But still the problem is how to produce so many 'records' or 'triples' >>to millions of resources published every year (digital or not >>digital).The idea of record is something that still will remain a long >>time, at least while the software allow to make all the triples that a >>book (or a resource) need to have a good representation. Are triples >>soustainable for cataloguing? >> >> How to translate triples to a simple (or enough simple) data entry. It >>is not the same to treat an RDF file (you can convert to whatever if you >>are experienced), than cataloguing. The old data entry. I'am affraid >>cataloguing will became slow, difficult and more unsustainable than now. >>During a lot of years it was discussed if cataloguing was sustainable. I >>think that if RDF, no matter which schema or model, is not translated to >>a good data entry (a record), we will have a lot of bad descriptions or >>incomplete representations of resources (whatever resource means, that >>I'm not very sure). >> >> Librarians are striving to participate in the world of open data. Now >>we have to produce triples useful for everyone, but will be sufficiently >>useful for librarians? There are many millions of data to loss security >>in what we are doing. >> >> No need for records? What for is DESCRIBE if to create 'a record' with >>all the triples related with a resource. >> >> Francisca >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> De: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>[[log in to unmask]] En nombre de Young,Jeff (OR) >>[[log in to unmask]] >> Enviado el: lunes, 06 de mayo de 2013 20:23 >> Para: [log in to unmask] >> Asunto: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements) >> >> I agree, no need for ³records² going forward. >> >> Relational databases were 1st conceptualized back in 1969. Granted, >>they had limited scalability, which justified libraries pretty much >>ignoring them in favor of ³records² for the next 40 years. Those limits >>are gone now, though, thanks to Linked Data. It¹s time to move on. >> >> Jeff >> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Murray, Ronald >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:33 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations (Was: Documents and improvements) >> >> No need for ³records,² going forward: >> >> It may (I hope) be more easily translatable to the open world, but >>libraries need a sharable data format that replaces the current record >>format. So I do think that it is appropriate to *also* think of BIBFRAME >>as a record, and that some of its "record-ness" may remain within a >>library silo because it is only relevant there. A primary use case for >>library metadata is the sharing of descriptions of published materials >>that make up the inventories of library holdings, and are key to the >>management functions of library systems (acquisitions, collection >>development, circulation). These descriptions are indeed "records" >>regardless of the technology being used to hold the metadata. The >>soon-to-be-current cataloging rules separate "description" and "access." >>To my mind, the "access" part is most interesting as linked data, while >>the "description" part functions as a bound package (c.f. ISBD as the >>data "core"). >> >> >> Life Before Data While RDF is designed to generate graph-like data >>structures, that does not mean that RDF has articulated graph theory in >>its entirety. For example, within the first three pages of Dénes König¹s >>(1935) textbook* on graph theory, he defines graphs and subgraphs. >> >> But subgraphs are apparently what we have been discussing all along. >>Starting with the notion of a single (disconnected) global graph offered >>up by the W3C, we can refine that notion to include: >> >> * Subgraphs of the global graph that are defined and enhanced by >>libraries, archives, etc., in pursuit of their missions. >> >> >> * Subgraphs within the library subgraph that represent resource >>descriptions currently referred to by the implementation-oriented term >>³record.² >> >> >> * Subgraphs within the above subgraph that partition a resource >>description into logically/practically-motivated groupings (e.g. WEMI, >>EAD, etc.). >> >> >> * Subgraphs of the great global graph that are connected to library >>defined subgraphs, and provide information generated by external >>communities of description. >> >> Graph/subgraph thinking lends itself to typing and subtyping for the >>tidy-minded, and can invoke familiar (conceptual and implementable) >>strategies for graph-like resource description assembly, disassembly, >>positioning, traversal, insertion, extraction, etc. >> >> Life As Data Now we can think about how well RDA and other schemes >>support subgraph creation and use. >> >> ------ >> >> König¹s textbook the first in its field: >> >> ger: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/493400862 >> eng: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/20318446 (p. 1-3) >> >> ------ >> >> Ron Murray >> >> ======================================== >> Dans les champs de l¹observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits >>préparés. Louis Pasteur. Lille, 1854. >> >> ³Opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not official >>statements of the Library of Congress." >> ======================================== > >-- >Karen Coyle >[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net >ph: 1-510-540-7596 >m: 1-510-435-8234 >skype: kcoylenet >