Print

Print


HI,

Karen Fallgren and Jackie Shieh are working on the handling of serials in BIBFRAME. I'm picking up some of the holdings aspects, so I've been preparing a use case for tracing an article and its contextual relationships to Issues, Journal title and to BIBFRAME instances and works.

I'm out of the office at the moment but can finalise it next week when I return - I could possibly include some of the aspects that Juha has raised?

Apologies for the brevity but I'm dealing with a dodgy laptop and an even more dodgy network connection...

Best wishes,

Jan

Metadata Analyst
The British Library


-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of Ford, Kevin
Sent: Thu 9/19/2013 16:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
 
Dear Juha,

Thank you for your helpful message.

I think basically I am going to end up asking you to unpack this a little.  Ultimately, I think your email - and Karen's and Diane's follow ups - present a use case or three that needs to be captured.  Some have certainly been considered, but only in the abstract.  They need to be worked up as test cases and use cases in order to more fully appreciate any nuances that may surface. 

Nonetheless, I still can't help but think that a lot of the problem is associated with the notion that a Holding-as-annotation is somehow *not* a stand-alone resource in its own right.  It is.  (I am also trying not to rehash the second-class resource bit, but I think it may still apply.)

A Holding, in our experimentation, fits the Annotation model because it is important to know /who/ holds the copy *and* it has a local flavor.  This is a facility provided by the the Annotation model.  If a Holding-as-an-Annotation idea is rejected *but* it is still deemed important to know /who/ holds a copy, then I think we're splitting semantic hairs.   We'll end up with a Holding resource (just as we have now) that looks eerily similar to an Annotation (but it won't be, by formal definition, an Annotation).

About your first paragraph:
> If multiple instances of different works have been bound together into
> a single book, they all share the same item record in our present
> bibliographic database....
-- Not only does this represent something for a test case but the paragraph represents a use case.  The question I see is: Is it possible to take BIBFRAME holding/item data and parse it into your current system's framework. I'm not going to say this would be a requirement (I've not been keen to restrict ourselves to what is possible today versus what is possible in the future) but it is worth considering.  It is worth noting that a Holding resource would have a relationship with an Instance, not a Work.  You mentioned "work" repeatedly, so there may be a misunderstanding there. 

> From the
> system point of view, maintaining Holding data is different from
> maintaining data in other Annotation classes, especially when the
> number of items is large.
-- I have no argument about this, but we're certainly not saying a system must treat all Annotations in the same fashion.  If a system must or wants to treat Holdings resources differently, then that, to me, is how the system should be designed.

> In a union catalogue setting, there is a need to share Annotations
> which contain CoverArt, Review or Description. In contrast, sharing
> Holding information would be counterproductive. The current practice is
> to store in the union catalogue just the library codes of the
> institutions which own a copy / copies of the resource, and check from
> UC the OPAC circulation statuses whenever necessary. When UC harvests
> the data from participating libraries, it would be necessary to check
> Annotation and delete Holding information. Such filtering would not be
> necessary if Holding data is not mixed with Annotation.
-- There is a use case in here, but I need a little more about which system stores what information and which system is sharing what information with another system.  About the last sentence: whether Holding information is an Annotation or not, it still seems to me that Holdings would be "filtered," or at least specifically requested.  To make my point another way: you still need the Holding information (i.e., the Holding resources) regardless.

Returning to the need to work up an additional test case, we have been working on a discussion paper about Holdings.  Part of an early draft of that paper included a bunch of base MARC BIB and Holdings records (a number of them for serials) and a use case or two.  In the interest of exploring some of the issues surrounding Holdings, we took those use cases and MARC records and modeled them as test cases, which you can explore here: http://tinyurl.com/nn9jqso  

We'll add your bound example (and Karen's and Diane's examples) to the test case harness.  You should note - and I think it important that everyone recognize this - the issues are still "open."

Warmly,
Kevin

--
Kevin Ford
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
Washington, DC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juha Hakala [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:37 AM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> Cc: Ford, Kevin; Ulla Ikäheimo
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
> 
> Hello Kevin,
> 
> We have no problems with other Annotation classes, but Holding may be
> better off as a separate entity in BIBFRAME data model.
> 
> If multiple instances of different works have been bound together into
> a single book, they all share the same item record in our present
> bibliographic database. If BIBFRAME conversion follows this model (and
> other solutions will not be practical to us), we'll have one Annotation
> which annotates multiple BIBFRAME works. Even if this Annotation would
> only contain Holding information and there would be separate
> Annotations for other classes which by definition apply to single work
> only, the data model for Holding would be different than the data model
> for other Annotation classes which always annotate just a single
> work.
> 
> My colleagues were also concerned by the fact that Finnish libraries
> may have hundreds of copies of a single instance of a work (students
> are avid users of text book libraries). There may be hundreds of
> reviews of a work, but describing them all is not essential to the
> operation of the library. However, all the items must be described, and
> the (circulation) information about them must be up to date. From the
> system point of view, maintaining Holding data is different from
> maintaining data in other Annotation classes, especially when the
> number of items is large.
> 
> In a union catalogue setting, there is a need to share Annotations
> which contain CoverArt, Review or Description. In contrast, sharing
> Holding information would be counterproductive. The current practice is
> to store in the union catalogue just the library codes of the
> institutions which own a copy / copies of the resource, and check from
> UC the OPAC circulation statuses whenever necessary. When UC harvests
> the data from participating libraries, it would be necessary to check
> Annotation and delete Holding information. Such filtering would not be
> necessary if Holding data is not mixed with Annotation.
> 
> BIBFRAME model will eventually cover serials holdings as well. Like
> item level holdings, they have significant differences from other
> Annotation classes.  We hope that the possibility to creating a
> separate Holding entity within BIBFRAME model is considered.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Juha Hakala
> Ulla Ikäheimo
> The National Library of Finland
> 
> On 27.8.2013 21:57, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> 
> A BIBFRAME Annotation is a different type of resource than a BIBFRAME
> Work or BIBFRAME Instance resource.  It is no less important (or more
> important) than a Work or Instance.  An annotation resource is designed,
> in part, to accommodate institution specific information [1].   The
> Annotation component of the model reflects a pattern of description
> that captures information about who made the assertion ("Library A
> states it has a copy of Book Y signed by the author.").  And a Holding,
> unlike a Work or Instance resource, is specific to an institution.   It
> may have a call number that is specific to the institution, copy notes
> that are specific ("Signed by author"; "copy has ms. notes by author on
> endpapers"), etc.
> 
> I see a Holding as essential to fully describing an institution's copy
> of something.  To that end, all three types of resources - Work,
> Instance, Holding - will be necessary and related to each other (or at
> least I expect so 99% of the time).  The Holding, in turn, will relate
> to an Instance, which will relate to a Work.
> 
> Does that help?  I received the impression that you were viewing an
> Annotation as some kind of second-class resource to BIBFRAME Works and
> Instances.  That's not the case at all.  Is it different? Yes.   Any
> less  important? No.
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Kevin
> 
> [1] http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/#whatIsAnAnnotation
> 
> --
> Kevin Ford
> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> Library of Congress
> Washington, DC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
> 
>            OK. I have great trouble equating a "holding" to an
> annotation. A holding is an integral part of an instance and a work.
> Cover art, descriptions, and reviews really aren't integral, they are
> extra. You can refer to several million bib records in LC to see this
> as you are unlikely to find any without holdings but millions without
> the other annotations.
>            To take this a step further, as I see it, a work really
> can't exist, except in the mind of the creator, without an instance,
> even if that is only the author's manuscript, and an instance really
> can't exist without an item or holding, again, even if only the
> handwritten manuscript. I really can't practically get to a work
> without working backward from an item to an instance to a work.
> Anything else is vaporware. I can't get into the mind of the creator
> until the work is recorded in some way, once that work is recorded
> there is an instance and unless I can have that instance in my
> possession, as an item, I can't catalog the work or instance. The three
> forms are integral.
>            I don't see that holdings are any more annotation that
> instances. Items should be core resources, not annotations, in my
> humble opinion.
> 
> 
> Michael Mitchell
> Technical Services Librarian
> Brazosport College
> Lake Jackson, TX
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:44 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotation Model Draft 2
> 
> Announcing:
> BIBFRAME Annotation Model -
> BIBFRAME Community Draft, 26 August 2013 (second draft)
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/
> As with the previous draft (April 30) this is a work in progress,
> comments and discussion encouraged.
> Thanks to the BIBFRAME community, including the Early Experimenters,
> for the many comments and suggestions, which have resulted in what we
> think is a significantly improved document.
> Ray Denenberg
> Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
>  Juha Hakala
>  Senior advisor
> 
>  The National Library of Finland
>  Library Network Services
>  P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
>  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
>  Tel. +358 9 191 44293
>  Mobile +358 50 3827678
> 


**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*************************************************************************
 Think before you print