This is indeed rather unsettling.
Funnily enough, they even take the FRBR report (1997 text, in the
English version) as their example to show what BIBFRAME might look like
(p. 16ff). But one wonders whether they've taken the trouble of actually
reading it. The BIBFRAME entity "work", it seems, is a mixture of the
FRBR "work" and the FRBR "expression".
This doesn't seem helpful. To me, one of the most important lessons to
be learned from FRBR is the importance of the work (in the FRBR sense)
as a starting point for user navigation. In BIBFRAME, there doesn't seem
to be a common "node", to which the various expressions of the FRBR
report (1997 and 2007 text, translations in various languages) could be
linked - they would all be separate BIBFRAME works. Perhaps they could
at least be linked together horizontally ("Works can relate to other
Works reflecting, for example, part / whole relationships", p. 8).
The BIBFRAME "instance" sounds like the FRBR "manifestation". FRBR
"item" doesn't really seem to exist as an entity in its own right; it is
supposedly covered by BIBFRAME "holdings", which is an example for
"annotation", and therefore seen as something similar to cover art or a
review.
It should also be noted that "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of
one and only one BIBFRAME Work." (p. 10), whereas in FRBR a
manifestation may embody more than one expression.
The distinctions between "authority" and "annotation" also seem rather
shady to me. Subjects are given as examples for "authority". Would that
also include e.g. user tagging, or would this rather be "annotation"?
Granted, this is only a first draft, and it is explicitly stated that
the model is not complete (p. 8.). I also readily accept that BIBFRAME
should have a wider horizon than "just libraries". Among other things,
this certainly means that it should be possible to have different levels
of complexity (e.g. other parties might want a more "simple" way of
representing data than we're used to) withoug becoming incompatible. But
still, BIBFRAME simply _must_ be able to model RDA data in the necessary
granularity and specificity.
Heidrun
Am 24.11.2012 00:34, schrieb Robert Maxwell:
I haven't had a chance to look closely at the document yet, but it does disturb me that "a
team from Zephira" appears to have, having thought about it for a few months, swept away
nearly two decades of consideration by the best minds in the cataloging profession by apparently
abandoning the FRBR model, as Mac points out below. I realize not everyone agrees with the FRBR
model but I should think such a step should not happen simply because of a report from a consulting
group. Sally McCallum said in her announcement that "like MARC, [the model] must be able to
accommodate any number of content models", which is certainly true, but one would think that
at least one of those content models might be RDA, which was the entire impetus for hiring Zephira
to come up with a new model for us. Since RDA is firmly based on FRBR and DOES include provisions
for describing and linking to expressions, it does seem inappropriate that the new model should not
provide for this entity. I have a hard time seeing how this model would be any better a fit for RDA
than the current MARC model.
Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the division of the database into
"authority" and "instance" (which I gather is more or less the equivalent of
bibliographic records, see p. 10 of the report) seems extremely backward to me. In an ER linked
data database we would have descriptions of the entities linked by relationship links.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the
course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:41 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
Posted to Bibframe:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
Creative Work - a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the
cataloging item.
Instance - a resource reflecting an individual, material embodiment
of the Work.
Authority - a resource reflecting key authority concepts that have
defined relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Examples of
Authority Resources include People, Places, Topics, Organizations, etc.
Annotation - a resource that decorates other BIBFRAME resources with
additional information. Examples of such annotations include Library
Holdings information, cover art and reviews.
Are we to gather that RDA's "Work" is still a work, but that "Instance"
replaces Manifestation, Expression is no more, and Item data is a part
of annotation? Will WIAA or CIAA be our new acronym, replacing WEMI?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
