I don't know who would do the imaging.  It's cataloging workflow, so perhaps it is done by a technician when the item is received.  Perhaps by a cataloger with a hand-held scanner.  Perhaps publishers provide the images.

None of that addresses the lack of images for existing books, but that's just a technicality, right?

Yours,
Kevin

On 08/01/2014 05:13 PM, Bowers, Kate A. wrote:

Who will do all this scanning of the resource?



Kate Bowers
Collections Services Archivist
[log in to unmask]
617.496.2713
voice: (617) 384-7787
fax: (617) 495-8011
web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives
Twitter: @k8_bowers
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Harvard Library  |  Harvard University Archives  |  Pusey Library—Harvard Yard, Cambridge, MA 02138    archives.harvard.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [Radical] Transcribed and Controlled Data

2) Working on the Web, it's likely that many of the uses of
transcription will be better supported by other forms of
representation, like digital reproductions of a resource (e.g. scanned
images) or even complete access to a (digital) resource.

-- I could be completely sold on this idea.  I doubt it will happen, but I could be sold on it.  The potential is incredible, the logic is undeniable, and the concept in some ways already exists.

When it comes to the pre-existing concept, we talked about CoverArt images/annotations pointing to Instances, so why not title pages and their versos?  When it comes to the logic, this would seem to address many of RDA's interests with respect to matching the "record" to the thing and it would make the "record" about data. When it comes to the potential, I can now imagine a cataloging scenario that begins with the scanning of these important pages, which are then OCR-ed followed by some smart entity recognition that is then used to pre-populate the "record."

I like it.  I like it a lot.

Yours,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [Radical] Transcribed and Controlled Data

This is very wise. I'll add two cents of my own:

1) Many (not all, but many) of the uses of controlled data in systems
like RDA will be (better) supported by the use of identifiers in Linked Data.

2) Working on the Web, it's likely that many of the uses of
transcription will be better supported by other forms of
representation, like digital reproductions of a resource (e.g. scanned
images) or even complete access to a (digital) resource.

We ought, I think, to take these factors into account when deciding
how to invest time and effort into supporting these two forms of description.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Dear all,

In my experience, RDF and Linked Data can do both presentation based

information (eg here is content to present directly to the user,
without semantics eg [1]) and it can do semantic, descriptive
information (here is a rich description of the resource, say a book or
annotation eg [2]) but both at once is very challenging without simply
repeating everything in a for- machines way and a for-humans way as
per the current titleStatement, providerStatement, and one assumes
authorStatement, subjectStatement, etc.

Here are two radical ideas, for which the boat has probably long
since sailed,

but I'll throw them out there regardless.

1. Don't try to mix them up.  Have two completely separate
descriptions,

where one is intended for humans to read, and the other is intended
for machines to reason upon and search.  A machine will only ever
throw a transcribed string through to the user, so make it easy for
them to do that by separating the non-semantic information from the
semantic information, with links between them.

2.  Mix them up using the appropriate technology: HTML + RDFA.
Instead

of thinking about triples for everything, instead create the HTML that
you want the user to see.  Then annotate that HTML with RDFA
properties to add the semantics into the record (and really a record
now, not a graph).  This way there's only one record to maintain that
has both, but uses presentation technology for presenting things to
users, and semantic technology for enabling machines to understand the information.

Basically -- use the right tools for the job.  RDF has a hard time
representing

transcriptions outside of non-semantic strings because it was never
intended to do that.  Order in RDF is a complete pain, because a graph
is inherently unordered, but there are very real use cases that
require order.  On the other hand, RDF is fantastic for controlled
data as that is precisely its intended usage.  We should make the most
appropriate use of the tools that we have available to us, rather than treating everything as a nail.

Best,

Rob

[1].  The IIIF Presentation API is focused on this approach of
giving

information intended for a client to display, while still being useful
linked data by referencing existing semantic descriptions and
following REST and JSON- LD.  http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.0/

[2].  The Open Annotation work is a rich data model that provides

semantics for web annotation, but says almost nothing about presentation.
http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/

--
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator Digital Library Systems and
Services Stanford, CA 94305