<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.
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!
Stephen Hearn, Metadata StrategistData Management & Access, University LibrariesUniversity of Minnesota160 Wilson Library309 19th Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55455Ph: 612-625-2328Fx: 612-625-3428ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242
-- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600