Print

Print


That is a reasonable argument given the lack of semantic factoring in the
LCSH as a whole,  but is less compelling outside that model.

A good example of how precombined terms add complexity can be seen in the
establishment terms for Fantasy:

http://id.loc.gov/search/?q=Fantasy&q=cs%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov%2Fauthorities%2FgenreForms

Also,  this record makes me wonder what fantasy literature about subject
headings would be like:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85129432.html .

Simon // Fairlie House (Imaginary organization)
On Nov 12, 2015 1:12 PM, "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Simon wrote “genre and form are logically distinct concepts,  and it is not
advisable to conflate the two.  Genre is an attribute of the content of a
work; form is most often an attribute of the carrier or medium.”  The ALA
Subject Analysis Committee’s Subcommittee on Genre/Form
Implementation’s Working
Group on the Definition and Scope of Genre/Form for LCGFT investigated this
by consulting numerous general and specialized reference sources and came
to a different conclusion.  In a report of its findings it said:



“The terms *genre* and *form* are often used interchangeably in
authoritative sources, and even when differentiated the resulting
definitions are inconsistent and contradictory--formal structure is often
cited as a key aspect of genre and intellectual content is considered as a
key aspect of form. Many approved genre/form terms represent resource types
defined by tightly bound intellectual content and formal structure.”



They recommended that LCGFT not attempt to define and present “genres” and
“forms” as meaningfully distinct concepts.





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



*From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Simon Spero
*Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:51 AM

*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Categories--Genre/Form



This is not quite correct; fixed fields* can be treated as just another
kind of property. Alternatively, fixed fields can be mapped to Classes.

For fixed fields that have a limited range of values, the values can be
represented as IRIs. For some fields mapping to class membership

For a fixed field that is either yes or no,  the value can be a boolean
data property, though membership of a class or its complement may be
appropriate.

For a fixed field that takes a numeric,  date,  or interval value, a data
property is  appropriate.

In regards to the original issue,  genre and form are logically distinct
concepts,  and it is not advisable to conflate the two.  Genre is an
attribute of the content of a work; form is most often an attribute of the
carrier or medium.

It is theoretically and practically better to model the two things
separately, then provide an underdetermined union for legacy data.

Simon

* I'm using "fixed field" to refer to the various logical parts of the
"Licensed to Kill" control fields, plus the appropriate parts of the
leader.

On Nov 11, 2015 1:52 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Every IRI is the equivalent of a MARC fixed field -- that is, a coded,
identified value.

kc

On 11/11/15 10:01 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

The idea of "Electronic books" as a genre seems weird to me. As a rule of t=
humb, shouldn't "genre" should be agnostic to physical/digital distinctions=
?

having this genre term is the easiest way to find what electronic
books are in a collection.  Not all ILS or patrons have the expertise
to search by a fixed field.  Also, will Bibframe have the equivalent
of MARC fixed fields?




    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________


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