On 11/26/2012 09:53 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: <snip>
A lot of speculation. We have to simply ask for the reasoning that resulted in the draft as it is. Maybe - another speculation - they came to the conclusion (after studying Jim Weinheimer's musings, for instance) that WEMI is impracticable or not desirable or not worth the time and effort. Is there none of the insiders here to provide some background on all this?
</snip>
I would personally like the BIBFRAME suggestions much more if all references to FRBR were taken out. As Eric Miller mentioned in his talk at LC about the new bibliographic framework, http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5605 (and the ensuing discussion on Autocat), the framework must be simple. If it is not simple, nobody will even think about using it. Very wise words.
Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for trained catalogers to grasp. In addition, it is based on some unproven ideological concepts. Can we really expect non-librarian web creators to understand it so that they can implement it in some kind of coherent way?
While the new FRBR relationships may sound good at first, the reality is rather different. Introducing those relationships will seriously devalue the records in the catalog and degrade search results if we are not to undertake *massive* retrospective work. That is a simple fact (http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/09/cataloging-matters-no-16-catalogs.html). This is certainly not the underlying idea of linked data. The idea of linked data is to take the data that you *currently have*, share it openly in certain ways, and link information where it can be linked. Just by doing that, it is assumed that you have increased its value. We should find out if it is true. We don't have to devalue the millions of records we have now.
The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the public hasn't been able to do them since keyword searching was introduced--even in our library catalogs. That has been quite awhile now and I have never seen or heard of anyone complaining. Those original tasks have been long forgotten and have now been superceded in a multitude of ways. Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI, it can be done now with the right catalog software.
For navigation and discovery, let advances in software deal with all of that, just as modern software can now extract all the headings and turn them into facets for further searching. What more will advances in software be able to do as full-text becomes increasingly available and library metadata can interact with it more and more? And as image searching (http://www.tineye.com) and sound searching (http://www.musipedia.org/) improve?
The new bibliographic format should be aimed at the *public*. They will be the consumers--not catalogers. We should not be trying to make ideological statements that others will not understand or care about, such as trying to teach WEMI or to convince them that people *really* want the FRBR user tasks. People want resources. Create records that are reliable, based on what we have now. If other projects harvest our metadata, assume that they will *not* retain our format, but will transform it into something else that serves their needs--just as libraries do with the formats they get.
The first steps in the new format should be to make it in the simplest ways possible so that web creators can use our records as soon as possible. The catalog world is starving for feedback! Once feedback starts coming in, the future should become clearer.
-- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
