 |
 |
On September 18, 2014, at 7:28 Karen wrote: > On 9/18/14, 2:06 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Is it as simple as Work bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Work and Instance > > bf:hasPart/bf:isPartOf Instance ? > > And then associate the absorbed/continued/superceded and language > > relationships with the Work-that-is-the-Part? > > It could be, but we may be getting into a rather complex area in terms > of relationships and the bibliographic world. A given library is a > subset of some larger bibliographic world of which it does not have > perfect knowledge. Let's take my local public library that has a few > copies of War and Peace, none of which are in Russian. The library also > does not have either catalogers nor patrons who would be able to read > the bibliographic information in the original Russian language. Although > the English-language translation *should* indicate that it is a > translation of the original, linking to the original 1) may not be > helpful to the library's users 2) is probably not a good use of the > cataloger's time. So a note that says "Translated from the Russian" > could be more helpful, and is undoubtedly easier on the cataloger, than > the creation of a relationship to a separate resource (that, btw, the > library does not hold). I see two different things here: One is cataloguing practice: In an ideal world the cataloguer of your local library shouldn't catalogue the local copy at all but re-use information from somewhere else, e. g. by creating a holding and link that to the appropriate bf:Instance (or rda:Manifestation or whatever...) _which might or might not be part of the local library's database_. I'm totally aware that this requires large changes in library infrastructure and that we're definitely not there yet, but that would be true data re-use... The second thing is how we build a user display. The information displayed to the user can depend on the context (of the library and of the user). A display in a small public library can take most information from the bf:Instance, look at the bf:Work and figure out that there is a link to the Russian original and create the text "translated from the Russian" from that information. I see no need for the cataloguer to create an extra note. > The work done around bibliographic relationships, from Tillett's > dissertation through FRBR, RDA, and now BIBFRAME, does not distinguish > between the whole bibliographic universe and the needs of the local > library collection. (I also believe that much of this work was done with > only large libraries in mind.) It may not make sense for a library to > have resources in its catalog that it does not hold, but that have > bibliographic relationships with ones in its collection. Until we have a > way that each individual catalog can move users easily from its > collection to the larger (and perhaps theoretical rather than > inventory-based) bibliographic world, this conflict remains. Yes, but we should definitely continue to work with the vision of a "theoretical" bibliographic universe that does not differentiate between local and global data (except for Holdings/Items) in mind and not constrain ourselves to the current library infrastructure. Best, Lars > > The work done around bibliographic relationships, from Tillett's > dissertation through FRBR, RDA, and now BIBFRAME, does not distinguish > between the whole bibliographic universe and the needs of the local > library collection. (I also believe that much of this work was done with > only large libraries in mind.) It may not make sense for a library to > have resources in its catalog that it does not hold, but that have > bibliographic relationships with ones in its collection. Until we have a > way that each individual catalog can move users easily from its > collection to the larger (and perhaps theoretical rather than > inventory-based) bibliographic world, this conflict remains. > > kc > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600