Print

Print


Joe,

However, that doesn't mean that you can't have an identifier for the 
series. In fact, that is a good argument FOR an identifier, if, as you 
say, the name of the series isn't reliable as a way to identify members 
of the series. Identifiers and transcribed strings have different 
purposes, and don't cancel out each other. If you need both, you supply 
both. I think, though, that it would be a good idea to have a clear 
understanding of the respective roles of each of these types of 
information. I've long thought that transcribed data should be clearly 
marked as such for users, especially when it conflicts with user 
expectations (e.g. when the transcribed string includes a typo), and may 
not be appropriate as the general user display. The role that 
transcription has played in the past as the preferred form in the 
catalog record is due to the fact that there wasn't a way to display 
clearly identified different versions of certain data elements, 
especially in the card/string oriented bibliographic record. That's no 
longer the case, so a transcribed string can be explicitly coded as a 
transcribed string, and doesn't have to be the preferred user display or 
the preferred source of indexing. Those users who need the detail of 
transcription should be able to see it, but there is no reason for it to 
predominate in cases where it actually makes finding things, like 
members of a series, more difficult.

kc

On 7/27/15 11:16 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>
> If all series were as simple as Penguin Classics, then storing 
> information in an identifier would meet library needs.  But that is 
> not the case.  There is a library (internal) use case for having a 
> record of the form of series on manifestations, for the purpose of 
> maintenance.  This isnít met by an identifier, even an identifier that 
> has non-preferred forms of the name (because you still donít know 
> which piece has which nameóimportant for determining series title 
> changes). Series may be quite changeable, including random variation 
> caused by publishersí lack of consistency and errors.  The series 
> proposal is meant to deal with the complexity found in the 
> bibliographic world and library practice to handle this complexity 
> over time.
>
> Joe
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:25 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
>
> Joe, as stated, the RDA rules are "technology neutral." I don't think 
> that they say that a string can't be represented by an identifier so 
> that one doesn't have to write "Penguin Classics" over and over again 
> when recording the series, any more than it would state that one 
> couldn't select a series title from a list of existing series titles. 
> Any string that is likely to be repeated could be assigned an 
> identifier. In fact, this is often what happens inside a database 
> management system for repeated strings, especially those that are 
> indexed, so it is already a fact of our existing systems.
>
> 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. If the cataloging rules require 
> "recording series information", does that mean that the information is 
> intended for display? for search? what kind of search? "Recording" 
> doesn't answer those questions, but they do need to be answered. A lot 
> happens, or should happen, after the cataloging data is created, and 
> we don't seem to have a clear specification of what that is.
>
> kc
>
> On 7/22/15 8:34 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>
>     There is a need for both.  Cataloging codes, like RDA, require
>     recording series information, and that is why bb:seriesStatement
>     is needed.  Some libraries (but not all) additionally provide a
>     link to a related series work, and that is best done, of course,
>     with an identifier. Neither of these two mechanisms replaces the
>     other:  both are necessary.
>
>     Joe
>
>     *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:00 AM
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
>
>     Nate, I buy that as long as there are only two options:
>
>     1. series statement that is a plain string
>     2. series entity with an identifier
>
>     It makes little sense to create a blank node when an identity can
>     be created. True, there will not be authoritative identifiers for
>     all (or even most?) series, but merging can take place over time
>     until most series have a useful identifier.
>
>     The bottom line is that there is no reason not to identify series
>     where one can.
>
>     kc
>
>     On 7/22/15 6:35 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
>
>         Itís pretty clear that sometimes a series is just a statement
>         and sometimes it can be a work in itsí own right, so we need
>         both bf:seriesStatement and bf:series/bf:Work to accommodate both.
>
>         Nate
>
>         *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>         [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Karen Coyle
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:39 AM
>         *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in
>         BIBFRAME
>
>         Joe and Theo,
>
>         This is clearly a well-thought out bit of work. I assume that
>         the blank node solution is viable, but I wonder if you
>         contemplated another possibility: that the series is a
>         bibliographic entity on its own that has a relationship with
>         monograph? This would make sense given that:
>          - a series is a work in its own right
>          - there can be catalog entries for the series itself
>          - some series have authority records
>
>         The advantage of this solution is that it identifies a series
>         with a persistent identifier that would allow one to link all
>         members of the series, e.g. to show a list of monographs in
>         the series. The disadvantage is that it has to solve these
>         problems:
>         1. what to do with series that usually do not get authority
>         control (e.g. the publishers' series) (my take: treat them as
>         entities and give them an ID)
>         2. at what "level" to link a series to a bf:Instance (the
>         bf:Work for the series?)
>
>         The #2 question there is one that is even more complex with
>         FRBR, but is true for all multi-entity bibliographic models,
>         which is that bibliographic relationships need to be made
>         between entities and it isn't always clear which entities are
>         appropriate for the relationship. In this case, the series as
>         a bf:Work is manifested as a group of bf:Instance's with a
>         "partOf" relationship. There's no single publication that is
>         the bf:Instance of the series. Perhaps this has already been
>         resolved in how serials are handled in BIBFRAME, though.
>         Hopefully someone can weigh in on that.
>
>         kc
>
>         On 7/20/15 10:33 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>
>             Series are complex and need a more detailed treatment than
>             has been provided to date.  Theo Gerontakos and I have
>             written a proposal with a way to handle them.  It is
>             attached, and also available at:
>
>             http://www.lib.washington.edu/msd/pubcat/ld/uw-series-proposal
>
>             Joe Kiegel
>
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         Karen Coyle
>
>         [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  http://kcoyle.net
>
>         m: +1-510-435-8234
>
>         skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Karen Coyle
>
>     [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  http://kcoyle.net
>
>     m: +1-510-435-8234
>
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>
>
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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