On 21/02/2012 16:53, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
The very purpose of imagining different entities for work, expression,
manifestation and item seem to me to imply that each entity displays one
time. (I realize I am jumping to incredible conclusions and will probably be
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: February 22, 2012 3:27 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Revolution in our Minds: Seeing the World Anew
See the examples under
There are some interesting quirks and aspects in this model.
Book is defined as an expression, which can be manifested in different
physical forms or as an e-book.
But by assigning ISBN to this level a problem arises because the ISBN is an
identifier for the manifestations on the next level
James Weinheimer wrote:
See the examples under the manifestations and items.
http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm, There are several,
e.g.
w1 J. S. Bach's Six suites for unaccompanied cello
* e1 performances by Janos Starker recorded partly in 1963 and
completed in
Interesting that they seem to have decided to subordinate the part-whole
distinction to the work-expression distinction.
Grant applications are works, but Grant application documents are
expressions. A work collection is a work, but an article is an
expression.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM,
James Weinheimer wrote:
It is very difficult to maintain that
FRBR is a conceptual model for anyone besides librarians.
Of course it's difficult, and that's why I and others are not even trying to do
that. We're explicitly (and repeatedly) maintaining that it is for librarians.
Kevin M.
James Weinheimer wrote:
It is very difficult to maintain that
FRBR is a conceptual model for anyone besides librarians.
Kevin M. Randall replied:
Of course it's difficult, and that's why I and others are not even trying to
do that. We're explicitly (and repeatedly) maintaining that it is for
On 22/02/2012 17:36, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
In reading FRBR, it is very important to understand that the figures used are
entity-relationship (ER) diagrams, not examples for OPAC displays. The figures
illustrate the relationships between the FRBR entities, for the purpose of
helping the
Mike Tribby wrote:
Kevin M. Randall replied:
Of course it's difficult, and that's why I and others are not even trying to
do
that. We're explicitly (and repeatedly) maintaining that it is for
librarians.
Perhaps I'm missing the larger--or even the smaller, more subtle--point once
If you ask me the term FRBR has worn out its usefulness, and become entirely
too ambiguous. That we are no longer primarily talking about records was
noticed by IFLA when they labeled the other FR specs as Data not Records.
But the ambiguity persists. When I teach intro to cataloging at
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: February 22, 2012 1:52 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Revolution in our Minds: Seeing the
Karen Coyle wrote:
FRBR claims to be based on a relational model, as in relational database.
I do not think FRBR self-identifies as a relational model. It is an
Entity-Relationship model. This may seem like hair-splitting but, while the
E-R model also framed
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: February 22, 2012 12:37 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Revolution in our Minds: Seeing the World
James Weinheimer wrote:
This would be all well and good, to claim that FRBR is only an abstraction
such
as a Venn diagram, but the fact is, one of the major points for the acceptance
of RDA with all of its attendant costs and hassle, is that it is the first
step on
the road to FRBR (which
On 2/22/12 11:07 AM, Myers, John F. wrote:
Karen Coyle wrote:
FRBR claims to be based on a relational model, as in relational database.
I do not think FRBR self-identifies as a relational model. It is an
Entity-Relationship model.
John, you are right.
On 2/22/2012 3:59 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
The question then becomes: is there a way to use FRBR as the
conceptual basis of our data without limiting ourselves to a single
implementation that insists that each entity be a separate record?
(Jonathan will wonder why not, and I can only point to
The Ohio Valley Group of Technical Services Librarians (OVGSTL) 2012 Conference
Catching the Next Wave of Technical Services
May 3rd-4th
University of Southern Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Hosted by University of Southern Indiana, University of Evansville, and
Evansville Vanderburgh County Public
On 2/22/12 1:13 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
If you're suggesting that each entity doesn't even need a seperate
identifier, you don't actually need to be clear about which entity
you're talking about when I'll try to find time to read all the
sources you've cited that you suggest make the
On 2/22/2012 4:44 PM, James Weinheimer wrote:
So, if the ultimate goal is for us to enter the linked data world, why
do we have to adopt the RDA/FRBR record structure first? Why not do
just do it now?
I think you are right that we don't need to wait for RDA/FRBR record
structure. And
On 22/02/2012 22:52, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
I actually don't think it's neccesarily 'marc', although marc is a
terrible terrible format we should be working to abolish. But, hey,
MarcXML is XML, everyone loves XML, or at least is okay with it,
right? And anyone can already turn any Marc
On 2/22/2012 5:25 PM, James Weinheimer wrote:
This is why I mentioned in my paper in Buenos Aires the NPTEL free
online courses that lots of people would really and truly find useful.
There are so many of these sorts of resources that it is absolutely
astounding! Unfortunately (I am
James Weinheimer wrote:
This is not saying that we should not be aiming for linked data. Doing it with
identifiers would be better (maybe) than what we have now. The biggest
obstacle of entering the linked data world, in my opinion, is to interoperate
with what is already there, and will be
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: February-22-12 4:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What FRBR is not
On
Jonathan said to James:
So wait, if I understand right, you're arguing that to 'make a real
difference to the public', we should stop caring about bibliographic
metadata at all, and focus on other things that have nothing to do with
maintaining bibliographic metadata?
Certainly our
-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: February 22, 2012 5:56 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Revolution in our Minds: Seeing the World
J. McRee Elrod writes
Johnathan said in another post The barrier is the data itself ...
.
I do not agree. Bibliographic data, AACR/MARC records, are far more
consistent than any other such data. A greater problem is the poor
utilization of that data by our systems, and the lack of
23.02.2012 01:31, Thomas Krichel:
... The poor utilization of the data in systems
comes from the fact that the data is not written for the purpose
of usage by systems. It is always composed with the idea that
a human will read it.
That's something the new Bibliographic Framework
27 matches
Mail list logo
