Print

Print

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
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242

-- 
Karen Coyle
[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