>>>  a genealogy of publishers/imprints for the last few years.

EAC might do it. 

Kate Bowers
Collections Services Archivist
[log in to unmask]
voice: (617) 384-7787 
fax: (617) 495-8011
Twitter: @k8_bowers
Harvard Library  |  Harvard University Archives  |  Pusey Library—Harvard Yard, Cambridge, MA 02138

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cecilia M. Preston
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 12:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently

If I may add my two cents here, as someone who has been trying to pull together a genealogy of publishers/imprints for the last few years.

I have been trying to figure out how the heck to make a neat and tidy publisher record that satisfies FRBR, RDA, BIBFRAME and conveys all the current as well as historical information associated with a publisher/imprint.  My head hurts and that is before all the twist and turns of determining the history of the publishing/imprint.  History being US publishers 1900 + What is a US publisher could be long drawn out conversation onto itself.

Question for the enlightened here, what does a publisher authority record need to accomplish?  

My original thoughts were to build a database such that someone with piece (monograph, serial, catalog record or what ever) could go to and enter the data gathered on the piece (title page, 260 field etc.)  and find out 
	1) if the company still exist and contact information,
	2) if it became an imprint or division or simply swallowed whole by another company, 
	3) fell off the face of the earth as of a certain date (no record of anything being published after date x), to facilitate the clearing of rights.  Then after talking with some folks working in this area was lead to believe a publisher authority database would be grand but you all were having enough issues with getting some the more basic bits working.

Welcome any discussion as to what purposes such data need to serve.


p.s. Using Donald Thornbury line just below in previous message ‘Place of publication is a relationship of the publisher entity”  I would add at a given time x-y.  As a publisher will most likely have changed place over time.

Also, place of publication can not be used to determine if monograph manifestations are the same if one is taking the data from a pre-aacr catalog record, as the place recorded would have been the physical location closest to the cataloger, most likely to facilitate replacing the piece.

On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Donald R. Thornbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I completely agree.  Place of publication is a relationship of the publisher entity.  This bit of discussion is going over ground covered in FRBR 4.1:
> "For example, "place of publication/distribution" is defined as an attribute of the manifestation to reflect the statement appearing in the manifestation itself that indicates where it was published. Inasmuch as the model also defines place as an entity it would have been possible to define an additional relationship linking the entity place either directly to the manifestation or indirectly through the entities person and corporate body which in turn are linked through the production relationship to the manifestation. To produce a fully developed data model further definition of that kind would be appropriate."
> It's now time to develop the data model so it's not so string-y. Displays and user access to "authority" data can be configured to as to provide all relevant information.
> We should note that place of publication is not specified as a criterion for distinguishing monograph manifestations, per RDA LC-PCC PS for 2.1, and that in Table 6.3 FRBR has Place of publication/distribution as a low-value attribute for identifying manifestations.  Transcribing place names as attributes a zillion times isn't worth the effort when we have a more efficient way to handle data.
> Don Thornbury
> Donald R. Thornbury
> Head, Technical Services for Special Collections Department of Rare 
> Books and Special Collections Princeton University Library One 
> Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08544-2098
> Office: 609.258.0874
> Fax: 609.258.2324
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal to handle "Providers" differently
> Rather than reproducing the labels of a entity (e.g. place of publication) in several places for our own technical convenience, we can supply them on the entity (the authority data) and either by indexing ahead of time or by on-demand retrieval, we can use them for display at the appropriate time (during the patron's session).
> Patrons can certainly have access to authority "records". In fact, one could say that this is essential to doing good Linked Data.
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:56 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> If we have a pointer fully-populated authority control record for 
>>> publisher, adding location of publication is redundant at best and misleading at worst.
>> Patrons rarely have access to authority records.  The brief display 
>> should contain the place and jurisdictiion of publication, jurisdiction supplied if not in the resource.
>> That is basic information, and often a clue to the viewpoint of a resource.
>> We are working for patrons, not each other!
>>  __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>> {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
>> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________