Hash: SHA1

Am 09.09.2015 um 08:51 schrieb Karen Coyle:
> At the moment, BF has a property for "identifierStatus", presumably to
> carry the information that is now in the MARC $z of many identifier fi
> $z - Canceled/invalid
> In the serials area it is more complex, as the ISSN has:
> $m - Canceled ISSN-L (R)
> $y - Incorrect ISSN (R)
> $z - Canceled ISSN (R)
> As a qualifier on the identifier, this means that many uses of the
> identifier need to check the qualifier to see if the identifier is val
> because they will only want to operate on valid identifiers (e.g. for
> linking). That strikes me as a bad idea, especially since the vast
> majority will be valid.
> Another option is to treat the invalid/etc. identifiers as separate
> properties, with their own relationship to the entity identified, or
> with a relationship to a specific identifier. (The MARC format
> unfortunately tends to have in the same field subfields that qualify t
> focus of the cataloging (the book, the journal) and subfields that
> qualify or relate to other subfields in the field. So one has to decid
> whether the ISSN-L has a direct relationship to the ISSN or has a dire
> relationship to the serial, and the same for invalid and canceled
> identifiers. )

I had to look it up in the ISSN manual: There are two situations where
a "cancelled ISSN" occurs (certain kinds of splits and merges) and
there also are "deleted ISSNs" (the agency deletes the record because it
was decided to be not on topic for the registry however other places
still might proliferate an associated record carrying this identifier -
who would know that?). For cancelled ISSN-L the manual refers to its
section about ISSN-L but there is no mention of it. Since off-hand I
can think of two different interpretations it must be left to
further investigation whether cancellation as such can be considered an
orthogonal additional property applicable to ISSN and ISSN-L or if
there is "cancelled ISSN" as a property for ISSN and "cancelled ISSN-L"
as a property for ISSN-L (see how we start reverse-engeneering the
ISSN specification because we want to decide if and how some more
abstract paradigms of operating a registry might apply to ISSNs?

Other identifier systems might "support" identifiers which are declared
obsolete in a different way and one could rather interpret them as
divided in "preferred" and "deprecated" ones.

So qualification of identifiers is very specific to the rules governing
the identifier system in question, and like the identifier itself should
not be questioned by Bibframe (i.e. must be transported faithfully
and especially without remodeling), and interpretation of that
qualification probably must always be left to applications.

Providing alternative properties or a fixed vocabulary for "cases" in BF
will probabliy only create friction: Different providers will encode
the same situation in different ways, since mapping of the rules of
the identifier system to a bibframe identifier typology will very much
depend on interpretation.

Perhaps one could add bibframe:meta-qualifiers where the provider of
the data can declare one identifier as being "best" to his knowledge.
Another processing expectation would be that any unqualified
identifier should be considered "valid" and "best"...

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -