Print

Print


Thank you NancyL

I will need to pow-wow to the UChicago folks to see how we would implement a reciprocal adminmetadata property in praxis

Interesting development

cheerz

From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 14:36
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia
 
Sorry, that's all I know. I put in the request yesterday, and got the reply today.

NancyL

From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia
 

Thanks, NancyL!

Any idea when that will happen?  Would like to make the change sooner than later in our AdminMetadata RT.

-NancyF

 

From: Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

Woo hoo! From LC:

 

[log in to unmask]">


From: Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 1:44 PM
To: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

Oh, I don't disagree with your choice in any way, and I didn't it was deprecated, just not used by LC any more. I'm fine with it.

 

Nancy


From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

I checked with LC to confirm that bflc:target has not been deprecated and it is still valid for use.  In addition, FWIW I offered AdminMetadata as a possible use case for keeping it in the vocab.  As with all bflc Classes and properties there is no promise it will get promoted to bf.  If there is a better and more permanent alternative to bflc:target, I�d be happy to change it.

 

That said, at this time, bflc:target seems the best available choice.  We could use bf:hasInstance and bf:hasItem (assuming AdminMetadata could be used with Items) but there is no bf:hasWork, so we still need a solution for that. In addition, the former two are really not intended to be used with AdminMetadata 😊

 

We also talked about using bflc:appliesTo, but that wants to create a node with bflc:AppliesTo and is just more complicated than needed.

 

-NancyF

 

From: Nancy Lorimer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

Thank you NancyF and Paloma for doing this! It is a great step forward.

 

Just for clarity, there is actually an LD4P template for AdminMetadata, based on the LC template. It is ld4p:RT:bf2:AdminMetadata:BFDB. The reason it has NDMSO as an author is simply because we forgot to change it! It was changed in the profile data, but not the RT data.

 

My only caveat here is with the use of bflc:target. There is nothing wrong with this semantically. My questions stem from two issues:

  1. LC no longer uses bflc:target themselves. The reason for its initial creation is now gone. I would wonder, since this is LC's vocabulary, whether they will keep it longterm.
  2. Though a longer term solution, it seems to make sense to me to request the creation of the inverse property as part of Bibframe proper, as in bf:adminMetadataFor or whatever they want to call it. I have put this in as an issue to LC.

    And so the caveat, is it's great to use bflc:target, but it is possibly will change.
    NancyL 

From: PCC LD4P2 Cohort List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

We are in the process of putting an NLM AdminMetadata RT up on Prod.  We just tested it this morning on Stage � I forgot to add Description Authentication 😊 � and hope to have it on Prod by COB today.

 

Anyway, ours was built off of and in collaboration with the HRC AdminMetadata RT (shout out to Paloma!).  It adds a Target Resource field where you can record the URI of the resource the admin metadata is about (reciprocal to the admin metadata URI in the Work/Instance/Item) � as has been generally recommended in the Profiles Affinity Group.  It also has an embedded Modification RT so that you can have one AdminMetadata RT with multiple updates by multiple people (e.g., to represent an encoding level change from prelim to full) and a scope note to record the change(s) made to the resource � so you can have a change history that states the actual change.  We are thinking that if Sinopia allows a resource to be updated/edited by multiple institutions (without a URI change, i.e., without copying and creating a new resource), that repeatable Modications RT with scope note will come in handy.

 

FYI, since the Profiles Affinity Group has not yet defined a base AdminMetadata Profile/RT, I have not un-nested admin metadata from the base un-nested serial profiles yet.   I would be interested to know if everyone has a custom admin metadata RT and if it would be preferred for admin metadata to be un-nested from serials even without a base profile for un-nested admin metadata in place.

 

-Nancy

 

From: Christine DeZelar-Tiedman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCC-LD4P2] 'Description Authentication' in Admin Metadata template in Sinopia

 

We created our own templates with local defaults in the Admin Metadata. So far only Monographs, but the Admin Template could be linked to any other profile. So far, we haven't found a reason to have an institution-specific Work template, but for Instance, Item, and Admin we had local modifications or defaults we wanted to include.

 

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:23 AM Jesse Lambertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good morning, happy friday

 

I hope this finds everyone healthy

 

We were talking today in our local bi-weekly Sinopia cataloging meeting about how we should best use and interface with Admin Metadata. It's important.

 

We want to know how folks are using 'Description Authentication'

 

Are folks creating their own templates with defaults?

Are you choosing on a per-cataloging-resource-in-hand basis?

Any other thoughts on this topic, we should be thinking about?

 

thank you (have a good weekend)

 

 

 

Jesse A Lambertson

Metadata / Digital Resources Librarian

Ph: 773-702-9620

D'Angelo Law Library (University of Chicago)


 

--

--

Christine DeZelar-Tiedman  

Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian | University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library | 309 19th Ave. S. | Minneapolis, MN 55455             

[log in to unmask] | (612) 625-0381  

she, her, hers