 |
 |
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > <snip. > > In fact, what FRBR provides is not a record model but a model of > collocation based on bibliographic relationships that can be used in a > computerized catalog, something that we were not able to achieve with flat > records stored in database management systems. I think this is the key > take-away from FRBR and linked data, which is that linking provides a > richer form of collocation than we had in the physical catalog, and some of > the practices in that catalog were kludges to create some crude collocation > through alphabetical order. > What I'm stuck on is how to describe the relationship between a numbered series item and its series. The number belongs to the item, not to the series. To say that "item x / is a member of series / series x ; no. 3" the way one would with bf:series for an unnumbered series makes no sense, since "series x; no. 3" is not a series--taken as a whole, it's an alternate designation specific to the item. So the relationship looks more to me like a relationship to an enumeration system. It could also be modeled along the lines of relator terms/codes,another piece of data which belongs to the resource's description, not the referenced entity. In MARC we put the relator term after its name--700 1 $a Smith, John $e editor--like we do with series numbers, but as data it specifies the relationship type--Resource X / has editor / Smith, John. Series number could be treated as bf:numberedSeriesNumber, similar to bf:relator but with a more open vocabulary--Resource X / is no. 3 in / series x. Stephen > > > kc > > > Stephen > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Bernhard Eversberg < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 24.07.2015 03:25, Karen Coyle: >> >>> >>> One thing I think that we have failed to do (as a profession) is to >>> bridge the gap between the intent of the cataloging rules and the actual >>> functioning of the technology that will manage the data that is created >>> in the cataloging workflow. >>> >> >> That's not exactly a new observation. >> As I recall, back in 1984, there was an extended thread in AUTOCAT on >> the subject of the OPAC interface, and the complete lack of guidelines >> for its search and display features. The subject headline was "Face the >> Interface". Subsequently, years later, Martha Yee (on behalf of IFLA) >> published a study on OPAC design guidelines. >> All of that was of no effect, and now RDA (cherished "New International >> Standard") does even less to support standardization of search and >> display and navigation features. So you can rightly call it a failure >> of our profession, and not a small one. >> Well, here's a challenge for the up and coming Generation BIBFRAME! >> >> B.Eversberg >> > > > > -- > Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist > Data Management & Access, University Libraries > University of Minnesota > 160 Wilson Library > 309 19th Avenue South > Minneapolis, MN 55455 > Ph: 612-625-2328 > Fx: 612-625-3428 > ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242 > > > -- > Karen [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 > > -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Data Management & Access, University Libraries University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428 ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242