Print

Print


Steven, good question since as you say it is invisible in the conversion from MARC.

Thanks to Amber and Kirk and both are right.  For the retrospective MARC data coming from libraries one needs to do tests to separate count from unit, and our converter does not do that.  For MARC data coming from archives one expects the count and units to be separated, $a followed by $f.  Subfield $f was added to the format 20+ years ago to accommodate the needs of archives.  If you look at current RDA library cataloging rules, there are all sorts of options but a basic one is to record the count and then take the units from a set list (the carrier list) and if libraries wanted to do that in native BIBFRAME input then they might use a URI for the units.

Sally


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amber Billey
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 9:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:unit/bf:Unit and bf:extent/bf:Extent

Hi Steven,
You won't find the use of bf:unit/bf:Unit in the comparison tool because 300 tag data is being mapped as a literal rdfs:label for bf:Extent. Are the profiles you're looking at based off an earlier version of BF? The bf:unit/bf:Unit are a relatively new property/class, and they might be LC's attempt to future proof modeling extent metadata in a post-MARC environment.
Best,
Amber Billey

Systems/Metadata Librarian
Bard College Libraries
@justbilley

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Steven Michael Folsom <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
A quick question I’m hoping LC can clear up…

Can you give an example of how bf:unit/bf:Unit are supposed to be used with bf:extent/bf:Extent? I tried using the BF comparison tool haven’t found an example of bf:unit/bf:Unit being used. I also found no mention of bf:unit/bf:Unit in any of the bfe profiles.

--
Steven Folsom
Metadata Specialist
Cornell University Library
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-5769
http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/sf433
@sf433