Print

Print


The data actually derives from a MARC record.  Not carrying forward the practice of truncation is a cataloging/policy decision; bibframe is agnostic on this point.  If you do not like it, don't do it.

With respect to "providerPlace," the solution I proposed would, more or less, eliminate "providerPlace" and replace that with:

publishedAt
producedAt
distributedAt
manufacturedAt

Yours,
Kevin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:01 PM
> To: Ford, Kevin
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
> 
> 
> Kevin posted as an example:
> 
> >         bf:providerPlace [ a bf:Place ; bf:label "London" ]
> 
> Is that London England or London Ontario?  Since RDA now allows provision
> of jurisdiction if lacking, could we please not carry the
> AACR2 practice of truncated places of publication, manufacture, or
> distribution into Bibframe?  (At least we no longer omit place for
> producer.)
> 
> bf:Place should be defined as including jurisdiction.
> 
> Why "providerPlace" rather than Producer, Publisher, Distributor, or
> Manufacturer?  It would help to have more consistent terminology amongst
> our standards.  Might not some consider "Provider" to mean the book jobber?
> English terms are often ambiguous.
> 
> 
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__
> \__________________________________________________________