Print

Print


Kevin, and that's exactly why I replied as I did to Adam. For the 
purposes of data in RDF, the creation of identifiers is not the same act 
as creating an authority record or even an authoritative form of a name. 
You can create an identifier and 1) change the display string at any 
time 2) declare this identifier to be for the same "thing" as another 
identifier at any time. It is no longer a question of "indexed strings" 
-- those do not have the weight or authority that they have in 
text-based cataloging. It's something entirely different, and it also 
isn't a manual operation.

Consciously or not (and I suspect it is not) the act of cataloging 
creates machine-actionable data. "Indexes" exist for most words in the 
record, without the cataloger purposely creating those. Indexes also 
exist for any searchable strings or codes. Each index entry has an 
internal identifier. These machine indexes are not the same thing as the 
textual access points that are created in the catalog record. We need to 
move away from thinking of our data as "only" text strings. Text strings 
are not good identifiers, and are definitely not identifiers in a 
machine environment. We need to "identify" separately from human-facing 
displays, and realize that inside the machine identifiers rule. RDF 
means sharing identifiers, not strings. Our metadata is about identified 
things, not strings.

Honestly, RDA missed the boat by not producing an identifier-based 
cataloging code. Instead, our "future" cataloging rules were out of date 
with current technology before they were fully formatted as MS Word 
tables. A cataloging code could be identifier-based and still produce 
consistent displays. There's no conflict here, but continuing to focus 
on text strings while ignoring identifiers is totally out of sync with 
how post-analog technology works.

kc

On 8/10/15 10:51 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> I took Adam's point as being that LC is not including *indexed strings* (i.e., "series headings" or "access points") for series.  They are only including the series statement, the transcribed part of the series information.  LC has abandoned the idea of making explicit links between the resource and the series of which it is a part.  Recording a series identifier is in essence the same thing as recording the series authorized access point:  you're identifying the particular work (expression, manifestation, whatever).  And if you have decided that you are *not* going to make that identification (as LC has decided), then you will *not* want to be trying to match the series statement with any "indexed string"--and you will not want to be having any identifier established when there are no matches, either, because that is the essence of authority work.  LC has deliberately removed itself from the business of explicitly making statements about the authoritativeness, or identity, of the related resource; it is only transcribing information found on the resource being cataloged.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> [log in to unmask]
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:30 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Proposal for treatment of series in BIBFRAME
>>
>> Adam, establishing an identifier is not the same as creating an
>> authority record. In fact, your system today establishes an identifier
>> for every record and every indexed string without you having to do
>> anything. Identifiers serve machine needs and generally are not created
>> by humans. If, rather than typing in a series name you type in the
>> beginning characters and see a suggest list, that's all you need to do.
>> There will be an identifier for anything in that list. And if your
>> series isn't on the list, by creating a new entry in the list an
>> identifier will be created.
>>
>> That begs the question of what happens in the future to what we call
>> "authority records." My guess is that it will be possible to add
>> information to any identified thing, and that more information about the
>> thing (like alternate labels, beginning dates, publisher names...) will
>> be added as people either come across that information or find it
>> useful. Presuming that we share data, this works very much like
>> authority record sharing today. Undoubtedly, there will need to be
>> judgments regarding data quality, such that only those descriptions that
>> meet certain standards will be deemed "authoritative", with the rest
>> being mere "information." But none of this is directly related to
>> creating identifiers, except that anything we want to "talk about" will
>> have an identifier.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/15 6:34 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
>>> Many libraries, most importantly LC, are only transcribing series
>> statements from resources and not tracing them (i.e. not providing a
>> controlled authorized form as a related series work/expression access
>> point).  Is BIBFRAME going to require those libraries to reverse course
>> because they must link to a series every time?   Will that force them to
>> have to establish an identifier for each and every series, and possibly a
>> preferred name/authorized access point for said series?
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> (206) 543-8409
>>> (206) 685-8782 fax

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