BTW, I didn't necessarily mean to imply that Ron's examples CAN'T be described in natural language. They certainly can be and they can even can be (partially) described *formally*. They can't be *completely* described by any single POV, though, formal or otherwise, and it's in our best interests to accommodate that fact.

Ron can correct me if I'm wrong. :-)


On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:54 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I understood Ron to be saying that we can’t possibly formalize the rules if nobody can even describe his examples in natural language.




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Have your MARC and link it too (was 2-tier BIBFRAME)



On 2/3/15 12:31 PM, Murray, Ronald wrote:

Thomas Kuhn used the term exemplars to mean problem-solution sets whose understanding and solution demonstrated mastery of a given scientific area. Note that this does not refer to the software engineering concept of a use-case. So: given any of the contending resource description technologies, describe these exemplars:

There are at least two aspects to this: 1) what cataloging rules to use and 2) what data format to use. I don't know how different the results would be from using different cataloging rules, but if we don't know which rules are used then we don't know if we're comparing apples or oranges. Something has to be held constant for a comparison to make sense.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600