Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) / Multiparts
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip John Attig wrote: I don't believe that FRBR deals explicitly with multiparts; Well, the section 5.3.6.1 Whole/Part Relationships at the Item Level explicitly addresses the issue. Without, admittedly, giving much guidance for dealing with it. in FRBR terms, the entire multivolume set would constitute one item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work representing the set as a whole. And how useful ist that? Shakespeare's As you like it as a part of a Collected Plays edition is not a manifestation of the work? Even if within this collection it is a separate volume with its own title page and perfectly citable? I believe we shouldn't like it that way. Alternatively, each volume would be an item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work embodied in that volume. It seems to me that FRBR lets you model the situation either way -- or both. For an isolated catalog, this used to be acceptable. For cooperative cataloging, it meant lots of duplicates in the database. For the RDA vision of a Bibliographic Universe of Everything, it is not even good enough. /snip In my experience, the one area of bibliographic control that has the least amount of agreement is in the analytics: each bibliographic agency has its own idea of precisely what belongs to precisely what and how to describe it. Therefore, we have major problems in even getting a basic understanding of series, serials, sets, and collections such as conference proceedings. I honestly do not think that we can ever hope to get anything even close to a general agreement on this, so we have to look to other solutions. This relates back to user needs. People want the work or expression, while most more or less don't care about the physical embodiment. I certainly agree with Bernhard that very few people know to search for Shakespeare selections or Shakespeare works to get a copy of As you like it. This is one of those searches that tended to work much better in a card catalog where people had no choice except to browse by author, than it does today with keyword searching. People normally want individual articles from Time Magazine, not the whole thing. I think this can be extended to all kinds of collections, especially conference proceedings where access can be woefully inadequate. Of course, while people want individual papers they *may* also want to know about the materials related to the one they are looking at. With online resources, these considerations will probably only get more and more tricky. I think we should rather explore ways of bringing all of these different views of works and expressions together instead of trying to mandate that everything fit to a Procrustean Bed. The power of computers is such that I have no doubt it can be done today, but the displays could be very strange. Or, it could turn out that bringing these differing views together may make the bibliographic record more understandable and useful than ever before. (Sorry for using such an obsolete term as bibliographic record!) Although I am certainly no fan of FRBR, I believe the model could accommodate this. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) / Multiparts
Weinheimer Jim wrote: In my experience, the one area of bibliographic control that has the least amount of agreement is in the analytics: each bibliographic agency has its own idea of precisely what belongs to precisely what and how to describe it. Exactly. In my previous posting, I mixed things up. I should have referred to 5.3.1.1 Whole/Part Relationships at the Work Level There, the model very clearly demands that Independent parts (like monographs in a series or multivolume work) be separately described and linked to the (separately described) whole on the work level. (We've been doing that all the time.) I think we should rather explore ways of bringing all of these different views of works and expressions together ... Yes, finally, and put the 505 to rest. If nothing can be done on a grand scale, if RDA/FRBR ends up a pipedream and MARC lives on forever, one might at least extend the 700 $a$t and the 600 $a$t a little bit to accomodate URIs and codes or designations for various types of relationships to the cited work, isPartOf ... or whatever, but not hasPart And there's no reason why something could'nt be a part of more than one wholes. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
John Attig schrieb: If FRBR in fact models the item as associated with only one manifestation, then this is an obvious oversimplification -- as many have discovered when they learned that their systems have been designed on this same premise and therefore are not capable of dealing with bound-with/issued-with/filmed-with/etc. resources. It strikes me that it might be useful to construct modeling built around the item, which is after all what we all have in hand when we catalog and what we have in our collections. In order to support discovery (as opposed to the inventory and other item-based functions), the item needs to be linked to the manifestation, expression, and work. In a typical case (at least one in which there are multiple expressions and works), the items are the base of a pyramid, with a single work at the apex. In other cases (the with cases), the item is at the apex of the pyramid and the works at the base. In other cases (compilations, augmentations, etc.), the geometry can get rather complex. If, in current practice, a multipart is described in just one record with a long 505 for the parts, then what is the item? Specifically, if the parts have their own titles and can be cited and looked upon as manifestations of a work. Take Lord of the Rings and Shakespeare's Plays. Something better than the one-record approach with a 505 is long overdue. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
At 11:12 AM 3/8/2010, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: If, in current practice, a multipart is described in just one record with a long 505 for the parts, then what is the item? Specifically, if the parts have their own titles and can be cited and looked upon as manifestations of a work. Take Lord of the Rings and Shakespeare's Plays. I don't believe that FRBR deals explicitly with multiparts; in FRBR terms, the entire multivolume set would constitute one item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work representing the set as a whole. Alternatively, each volume would be an item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work embodied in that volume. It seems to me that FRBR lets you model the situation either way -- or both. John Attig Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
At 01:42 PM 3/5/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: I made the mistake of using a term without identifying it, sorry. In semantic web terms, this is a statement: Herman Melville -- is author of -- Moby Dick While library records today have that same information, it doesn't make sense outside of the record so you can't share it or link to it in other contexts. We have separate fields for the author and the book, and the connection between them is that they are in the same record. But take them out of the record and the connection is lost. In the semantic web view, each statement makes a connection between two things, and you can string the statements together to make a web of statements. Two comments: 1. You stress the independence of the statements, which I agree does give them value in a semantic web context. However, for many of us, the more important question is how we aggregate these individual statements into something that is meaningful in a context of bibliographic discovery. The single statement doesn't accomplish all that much until it is aggregated with -- or linked to -- other statements relating to the resource that enables one to find, identify and select that resource. 2. A reminder (one that I'm sure you would be insisting upon in other circumstances): You represent the Person and Work entities in your examples by text strings that are in fact particular *names* for the entities in question, not the entities themselves. I would argue that the statement above has a limited truth value if taken literally (i.e., if confined to the text strings it contains), but a more universal truth value if the text strings are taken as tokens for the entity itself. Presumably the systems that we design will treat entities and their names distinctly: [Person A] -- is author of -- [Work X] [Person A] -- has name -- Herman Melville -- and may have other names [Work X] -- has name -- Moby Dick -- and may have other names One of the things that makes me nervous about the semantic web world of individual statements is that the truth value of these statements is not assured. That is an unavoidable problem with statements on the web, and I'm not sure there is a solution to it. However, I would suggest that the context in which these statements are embedded is one of the factors that enables one to assign a truth value to them. John Attig Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: Thanks, John... a bit more discussion Two comments: 1. You stress the independence of the statements, which I agree does give them value in a semantic web context. However, for many of us, the more important question is how we aggregate these individual statements into something that is meaningful in a context of bibliographic discovery. The single statement doesn't accomplish all that much until it is aggregated with -- or linked to -- other statements relating to the resource that enables one to find, identify and select that resource. This is the role of the identifiers, or at least one role. It's hard to illustrate in text, I put a diagram here: http://kcoyle.net/rda/Slide05.jpg That's an over-simplified version, but I think it covers the basic concept. Everything linked to the same identifier belongs together. (BTW, this is not all that different from line-by-line formats like Aleph Sequential.) That example isn't FRBR-ized (and I should do another one that is!) but it would work the same, with each FRBR entity held together by an identifier, and the relationships between FRBR entities (is expression of) bringing together WEMI. Where the interesting work will need to take place will be in developing displays that help users navigate this linked universe. (Open Library is experimenting with this, and I'll announce their release of a kind of FRBR-ized view when it goes live.) Right now in library systems, when you do any kind of search you get the bib record. But we've all heard users say that when they do a subject search they want to see a subject view, not a bunch of authors and titles. And when they search on an author's name, they want to see information about the author and works by the author (not a gazillion manifestations). (Think WorldCat Identities.) I don't have a hard time imagining how we could bundle statements together in a technical sense, but I'm not at all sure that we know today which group of statements makes a coherent whole. (Which is probably what you were alluding to.) I don't think we'll know until we get more experience with creating this kind of data. However, if we have coded the relationships correctly (for our purposes) we should be able to use rule sets to determine what makes up a particular unit (and there may be different kinds of units, like inventory units v. work/collection development units.) 2. A reminder (one that I'm sure you would be insisting upon in other circumstances): You represent the Person and Work entities in your examples by text strings that are in fact particular *names* for the entities in question, not the entities themselves. I would argue that the statement above has a limited truth value if taken literally (i.e., if confined to the text strings it contains), but a more universal truth value if the text strings are taken as tokens for the entity itself. Presumably the systems that we design will treat entities and their names distinctly: [Person A] -- is author of -- [Work X] [Person A] -- has name -- Herman Melville -- and may have other names [Work X] -- has name -- Moby Dick -- and may have other names One of the things that makes me nervous about the semantic web world of individual statements is that the truth value of these statements is not assured. That is an unavoidable problem with statements on the web, and I'm not sure there is a solution to it. However, I would suggest that the context in which these statements are embedded is one of the factors that enables one to assign a truth value to them. Yes, this is absolutely true. I did a short example of this nature in my second Library Technology Report, but it gets tedious (for the reader and the author)really quickly! But you are right to point out that things are identified with identifiers, not with strings, and that strings are associated with identified things. The great value in the RDA properties are that you can say: LCCN:n 79091264 -- has preferred name -- Kurosawa, Akira, 1910-1998 [identifier for Shichinin no Samurai] -- has director -- n 79091264 etc. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
John, thanks once again. Great common-sense thinking here, and I appreciate your candor. Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: This doesn't address the aggregate question that Jonathan speaks to here. I suspect that by some logic, aggregates are expressions... ? True? I would certainly argue that this is true. For example, take a compilation of chapters by different authors. It is certainly true that each chapter is a manifestation of an expression of a distinct work. On the other hand, I would certainly want to argue that the compilation itself is a manifestation of an expression of a work. I would further argue that this aggregate work has its own creator(s) -- the compiler(s) of the compilation -- but that is a different argument for a different time -- and one that I lost when it came up during the development of RDA. On a purely practical level, don't we need an entry in the catalog that represents what the library purchased as a published thing? The three DVD set is going to be on some purchase order, and the catalog still has to fulfill the inventory function, right? kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
I think the nature of the problem you identify in your examples is not really with 'manifestation' as an entity, but with the lack of fleshing out of how to model aggregations in FRBR, a somewhat tricky problem. A 3 DVD set is really an aggregation of 3 manifestations (each of a certain expression). A re-published edition with 'added bits' (new introduction, etc) is really, in my opinion: A manifestation establishing a new expression representing the aggregation as a whole including the new bits, which includes: a manifestation of an existing expression (the 'main body' whose text is unchanged), as well as manifestations of new expressions (the 'added bits'), these new 'added bits' expresisons may or may not be 'important' enough to spend much time describing/recording, but they're there. [That is, in my analysis it's simplest to say that any given manifestation (belonging to an expression set, which belongs to a work-set) can be an aggregation of other manifestations (belonging to their own expression sets, and possibly different work sets)] So, in my understanding/analysis, the problems here are less with any ambiguity or overlap in the 'manifestation' entity, and more in the trickiness and lack of established ways to model 'aggregations', whether a boxed set, an anthology, or an existing expression republished in 'aggregation' with 'new bits'. The solution lies in some better instructions for modelling aggregations in FRBR; I know there is/was a FRBR working group on that issue, but I'm not sure what it's status is. Jonathan From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:34 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) Quoting Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu: The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges' Magnificent 7 if constructed the same way as the Kurosawa record would inferentially provide the data needed to create the statement establishing his connection. The logic would break down, though, when the bib record describes multiple objects. A MARC bib record describing a 3-DVD set of the three King Kong movies would have a hard time associating individual directors with their movies in a way that machines could process. As Adam observed, an authority record focused on a particular work or expression in a way that many bib records are not would provide a better basis for establishing these kinds of relationships. The more I think about FRBR, the more I think that the Manifestation is the fly in the ointment. Manifestations do more than manifest an expression. They often have added bits that don't follow from the work/expression, such as bibliographies supplied by the author or publisher but not part of the main text, indexes, illustrations that are added in to a text previously published without, etc. etc. etc. So you example here of trying to make sense of a record for a 3-DVD set illustrates that well. I'm beginning to think of the manifestation as having some overlap with W/E, but not entirely --- can't come up with the word, something like contiguous -- with it. I suspect that's how catalogers see it, it just doesn't seem to be expressed that way in FRBR. I think a better way of saying it would be that the manifestation manifests and often enhances the expression. I have a terrible feeling I'm the last one to realize this. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: I think the nature of the problem you identify in your examples is not really with 'manifestation' as an entity, but with the lack of fleshing out of how to model aggregations in FRBR, a somewhat tricky problem. I was informed off-list that what I described as a Manifestation with additional bits, like indices or bibliographies, would be considered an Expression in FRBR. Here's what FRBR says: The boundaries of the entity expression are defined, however, so as to exclude aspects of physical form, such as typeface and page layout, that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work as such. When an expression is accompanied by augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s). This then seems to me that there will be many expressions that each have only one manifestation. But since I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, I went to the RDA registry and pulled off the data elements listed there, and divided into W E M I plus Group2 and Group 3. You can see these raw lists of elements linked at: http://kcoyle.net/rda/ It helps me understand just what goes into a WorK, Expression, etc. to see the list of data elements (since I guess that's how I think about things). Note that there were three elements I wasn't sure of and I'm checking on those, plus there could easily have been flaws in my methodology, so if anyone sees problems in these lists please let me know. This doesn't address the aggregate question that Jonathan speaks to here. I suspect that by some logic, aggregates are expressions... ? True? kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip About any particular book, there can be many statements out in the open world of the Web. Provided there is a stable, reliable, unique, universally used identifier, going with every suchj statement, you're very nearly there. The ISBN and ISSN are not quite that good, but the best we have, and they do already play the part of that identifier in many practical scenarios. /snip There is now the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) http://www.istc-international.org/ that could go some way to solving this problem. I would personally like to see some real world examples of this, since it states: Each ISTC is a unique number assigned by a centralised registration system to a textual work, when a unique set of information about that work, known as a metadata record, is entered into the system. If another, identical metadata record has already been registered (perhaps, in the case of an out of copyright work, by another publisher), the system will assume the new ISTC request refers to the same work and will output the ISTC of the identical (or nearly identical) metadata record already held on the system. ... The ISTC is not intended for identifying manifestations of a textual work, including any physical products (e.g. a printed article) or electronic formats (e.g. an electronic book). Manifestations of textual works are the subject of separate identification systems. I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in FRBR-speak) expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a unique number for the entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except strictly for librarians) and they are thinking of specific translations or other versions of the Odyssey. Still, I may be wrong since the whole ISTC is confusing for me in the abstract and I would like to see something practical. In any case, it does seem as if people are addressing your concerns, and it's even an ISO standard. Concerning the recordless view, I see it as more moving away from the unit card, or the catalog card view (which we have today in our OPACs) and toward a type of a mashup: a dynamic view of various aspects of a resource with information drawn from a variety of sources: your own database, perhaps Amazon, H-Net, LibraryThing, perhaps you have a local Moodle implementation that people use to include information, and each user can customize the view to add or take away what he or she wants. An ISTC could go a long way in providing this type of display. Whether this is what people really want remains to be seen! James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Weinheimer Jim wrote: I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in FRBR-speak) expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a unique number for the entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except strictly for librarians) and they are thinking of specific translations or other versions of the Odyssey. Still, I may be wrong since the whole ISTC is confusing for me in the abstract and I would like to see something practical. In any case, it does seem as if people are addressing your concerns, and it's even an ISO standard. There's the rub. As soon as we leave the level of the physical object, it is essential that all parties agree on what they are talking about. Statements made elsewhere may not, I'm afraid, all be referring to FRBR entities. We might end up with mashups in the sense of hotchpotch. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
The ISBN has succeeded because it serves an extremely useful purpose in the book trade. Similarly, the DOI has experienced a modicum of success as a persistent identifier of scholarly articles, etc., because the major players have determined that the benefit justifies the cost, providing a necessary critical mass. The ISTC may eventually achieve such success (for new works) if it is widely adopted by copyright agencies and other intellectual property registration agencies, but the jury is out. On the positive side, the ONIX for ISTC looks very well thought out. http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%20for%20ISTC/ONIX-ISTC%20overview%20v1.0.pdf. However, no identifier scheme--not even the ISBN--is anywhere near universal. We should recall that libraries piggy-back on these schemes. They are designed for other purposes, and libraries co-opt them (or not) because they are good enough for our own distinct purposes. Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 1:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) Weinheimer Jim wrote: I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in FRBR-speak) expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a unique number for the entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except strictly for librarians) and they are thinking of specific translations or other versions of the Odyssey. Still, I may be wrong since the whole ISTC is confusing for me in the abstract and I would like to see something practical. In any case, it does seem as if people are addressing your concerns, and it's even an ISO standard. There's the rub. As soon as we leave the level of the physical object, it is essential that all parties agree on what they are talking about. Statements made elsewhere may not, I'm afraid, all be referring to FRBR entities. We might end up with mashups in the sense of hotchpotch. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
In today's record, we would code this somewhat like: 100 $a Kurosawa, Akira $e director 245 $a Shichinin no samurai 246 $a Seven Samurai 500 $a Adapted as The Magnificent 7 730 $a Magnificent 7 Well I would change your 100 to a 700 to make this more like what we do in a bibliographic record. But there's no reason all of this could not be in an authority record instead: 130 $a Shichinin no samurai 430 $a Seven samurai 500 $a Kurosawa, Akira $e director 530 $w r $i adapted as $a Magnificent 7 ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges' Magnificent 7 if constructed the same way as the Kurosawa record would inferentially provide the data needed to create the statement establishing his connection. The logic would break down, though, when the bib record describes multiple objects. A MARC bib record describing a 3-DVD set of the three King Kong movies would have a hard time associating individual directors with their movies in a way that machines could process. As Adam observed, an authority record focused on a particular work or expression in a way that many bib records are not would provide a better basis for establishing these kinds of relationships. Stephen Adam L. Schiff wrote: In today's record, we would code this somewhat like: 100 $a Kurosawa, Akira $e director 245 $a Shichinin no samurai 246 $a Seven Samurai 500 $a Adapted as The Magnificent 7 730 $a Magnificent 7 Well I would change your 100 to a 700 to make this more like what we do in a bibliographic record. But there's no reason all of this could not be in an authority record instead: 130 $a Shichinin no samurai 430 $a Seven samurai 500 $a Kurosawa, Akira $e director 530 $w r $i adapted as $a Magnificent 7 ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** -- Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coordinator/Head, Database Management Section Technical Services, University Libraries, University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 / Fax: 612-625-3428
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu: The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges' Magnificent 7 if constructed the same way as the Kurosawa record would inferentially provide the data needed to create the statement establishing his connection. The logic would break down, though, when the bib record describes multiple objects. A MARC bib record describing a 3-DVD set of the three King Kong movies would have a hard time associating individual directors with their movies in a way that machines could process. As Adam observed, an authority record focused on a particular work or expression in a way that many bib records are not would provide a better basis for establishing these kinds of relationships. The more I think about FRBR, the more I think that the Manifestation is the fly in the ointment. Manifestations do more than manifest an expression. They often have added bits that don't follow from the work/expression, such as bibliographies supplied by the author or publisher but not part of the main text, indexes, illustrations that are added in to a text previously published without, etc. etc. etc. So you example here of trying to make sense of a record for a 3-DVD set illustrates that well. I'm beginning to think of the manifestation as having some overlap with W/E, but not entirely --- can't come up with the word, something like contiguous -- with it. I suspect that's how catalogers see it, it just doesn't seem to be expressed that way in FRBR. I think a better way of saying it would be that the manifestation manifests and often enhances the expression. I have a terrible feeling I'm the last one to realize this. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu: This is perhaps only tangentially RDA-related. ... But if it was possible to convert MARC data into RDF-like statements, we could move away from what I see as a lot of the unnecessary work of thinking about and comparing *records* instead of thinking about data points. Instead of building and maintaining large stores of records, or trying to perform the Sisyphysian task of making a single standard for the one best record in each and every circumstance is, we could focus on building networks of cataloging institutions who have shared needs or interests (similar userbases, collections, etc.) and getting the best (that is, most appropriate to the particular needs of our institutions) data available. YES YES YES! It should make our data more re-usable/exchangeable because individual statements can be used as needed, even if the whole record isn't wanted. AS an example, libraries and publishers could share those data elements that they do have in common, while ignoring all of the things they don't. Libraries only care about the height of a book, but publishers need all three dimensions plus weight because they have to ship them out in large quantities. That fact shouldn't mean that we can't pull in the ISBN and publication year from the publishers' records. This is not so tangential to RDA, in my mind. Because we do need to create RDA data, and RDA has based itself on FRBR, and FRBR is based on an entity-relation model, which is much closer to the semantic web model than the unit-record model of AACR and MARC. The upshot being that RDA defines relationships between entites, and those relationships could become the basis for a thing/relationship-based data carrier, rather than the unit-record that we have now. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 0 is that in scenario 1 the relationships are only between entities (and the entities look like complex records), while in scenario 0 the relationships are at a more granular level, between all of the elements of the bibliographic description. So rather than just having a Work that relates to an Expression, you have relationships between all of the attributes of the work: author, title, subjects, form. It just takes the model down a level. And it means that the relationships, like author of are explicit. Which I think is how this thread got started, if I look up to the subject line: RDA relationships. Now my head is swimming, so I better take a break. Oh, BTW: http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm defines the RDA elements in a semantic web-compatible way. But we still need tools to create the data. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Ben Abrahamse wrote: For example, a library could decide to accept or ignore what MIT has to say about this particular work; or what MIT has to say about access points; or what MIT has to say at all, and their catalog could be configured to ignore or accept that particular statement if it encountered it. Nor would decisions such as these wouldn't have to be made on an institution-by- institution basis: we could have another triple stored on the network: MIT -- participates in -- NACO And the decision could be to accept all provide access point predicates IF the subject is a NACO participant. Wow, a whole new way of implementing cataloging blacklists!!! Happy Friday, everyone... Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
'Recordless view': I keep imagining a cataloguer visiting from the future: 'Records? Where we're going we won't need records...' :-) Irvin Flack Metadata Librarian Centre for Learning Innovation irvin.fl...@det.nsw.edu.au NSW Department of Education and Training www.cli.nsw.edu.au -Original Message- From: McGrath, Kelley C. [mailto:kmcgr...@bsu.edu] Sent: Friday, 5 March 2010 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Question about RDA relationships (App. J) Karen, Well, I'm clearly way behind on my email, but I find the idea of a recordless view intriguing and presumably much more flexible. I have been playing with E-R modeling for moving images in the modified version of FRBR that OLAC (online Audiovisual Catalogers) has been discussing. The thorniest areas so far are linking where there are gaps in information, scenarios where is seems like we want different amounts of detail under different scenarios, and dealing with parts of entities, although it may just be that I am going about this the wrong way. The model cases are simple, but the real data is messier and seems to have more levels. It's harder for me to intuitively get my head around how a model based just on statements would work in practice, but it does sound like it would deal better with gappy data, which is what we'll have. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Kelley Kelley McGrath Ball State University kmcgr...@bsu.edu From: Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book) that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. If I get a clear enough picture in my head, I'll make a drawing! kc ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. **
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
McGrath, Kelley C. wrote: Karen, ... I find the idea of a recordless view intriguing and presumably much more flexible. Karen Coyle had said: What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book) that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. About any particular book, there can be many statements out in the open world of the Web. Provided there is a stable, reliable, unique, universally used identifier, going with every suchj statement, you're very nearly there. The ISBN and ISSN are not quite that good, but the best we have, and they do already play the part of that identifier in many practical scenarios. In the paper world. we also had (and have) many statements about many documents, scattered throughout the literature - those, however, could not be found or collocated at the push of a button. It was an intellectual endeavor, and a very time consuming one, to collect statements about a book. The classical OPAC, of course, gave you just the record and nothing but the record that was in your database. Contemporary OPACs do already give you a lot more, they may link to any number of resources outside the catalog, and they may or may not pull in data about the book from other sources, like ToC or cover image. Following the links, you may get pointed to even more sources saying more things about the book in question. The links, notably, need not be part of the book's record! Provided there is the identifier - presently the ISBN/ISSN - links to all sorts of services and sources can be constructed by the OPAC software on the fly, and changed any time. Identifiers, and we've known that for a long time, are therefore key for navigation, although search statements for other databases can be constructed out of author/title data, but... Identifiers, of course, serve the known item search only. We also have to consider the collocation search (for other expressions and manifestations) and the subject search. But will every library need to have pertinent statements in their databases when such statements are available and accessible elsewhere? So, given the infrastructure that is in place now, and which is growing and improving without our moving a finger, what will be the minimum statement(s) a library needs to make about a document in its collection? And what functions will the library have to provide to establish a service that achieves more by doing less? And how much less (or more? or different things?) will that be than what RDA calls for? And where, coming to think of it, is the need for a complete bibliographic description as we know it? (And what would complete mean, anyway.) B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Daniel CannCasciato wrote: snip Hal Cain wrote: I wonder how far OCLC will let participants go in supplying these kinds of links: And I agree. I am not allowed to update the pcc records at this time. /snip I will throw a spanner in the works here and say that in the new world of shared data, it is impossible to predict where our records will show up, how they will look, how they function, and how they will be used, so it is vital that catalogers realize that it will not be catalogers and librarians who will be the ones deciding what will happen to their records. For example, if the records continue to go into Google Books as they are now, it will be Google who decides what kind of links will be allowed, not us and not OCLC. This is an example of what many are calling losing control. (The legal decision on opening up GBS could come this week, by the way! Hold on!) snip However, I do wonder how many catalogers would agree with Karen's assertion that the library concept is that metadata is a one-time creation rather than additive. I certainly don't and have advocated for the iterative process for bibliographic and authority data. As Hal identified later in his message, the core record is meant to be a dynamic one. The fact that the practice as yet isn't supported (logistically and administratively) is fundamental problem for users. Some library administrators, for example, tend to view the iterative process as tweaking and needless, rather than inherently required. David Bade's work (and the work of others) certainly gives a strong argument for exploiting language, scholarly, and subject expertise when we can. I hope the iterative process becomes more acceptable regardless of which environment one is working from or in. /snip But in this new world, other information will be included. Look at the popularity of LibraryThing, which works quite differently. Here is a random record: http://www.librarything.com/work/3798968/56086063 I think these views are some of what we need to be studying. This does not mean that we simply imitate LibraryThing or GBS, but we need to learn from their successes. The idea of a do it once, do it right, forget it vs. tweaking doesn't make a lot of sense in a world that mashes records together and are open to general collaboration with the world. We should remember that many more people are using LibraryThing than WorldCat, obviously because it fulfills their needs better. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/librarything.com (Librarything) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/worldcat.org (WorldCat) Libraries and their metadata need to become a meaningful part of this bigger universe of metadata. But to do this, we need to rid ourselves of a lot of the old assumptions. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net: Quoting hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf -- a formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title under author's name): Supply if known or can be easily inferred from the item being cataloged. One key difference between library cataloging and the web-based concepts in the semantic web work is that the latter sees metadata as being built up as information becomes available. So metadata in a networked environment is additive -- it's not a one-time creation. If one contributor knows the uniform title (Work title), then all linked Manifestations now have access to that title. Yebbut... there's that linking process. I wonder how far OCLC will let participants go in supplying these kinds of links: there seems to be still considerable emphasis on levels of entitlement to modify existing records already tagged at a certain level; there are, I believe, restrictions on modifying records tagged with a PCC code in 042 -- since I don't work in the WorldCat database, I'm not familiar with these restrictions and how they work. Such restrictions don't apply to those registered to work in the Australian National Bibliographic Database (Libraries Australia) but not many participants choose to do that; the effects though seem no more troublesome to data quality than the flood of trivially-variant duplicates that arises from batch loading subscribers' files. I think that either we have high-quality databases to which only a restricted number of certified participants may contribute (and the same are entitled to edit too), or we allow a free hand to all. As a comparison, the National Library has a newspaper site, where the scanned images are accompanied by sometimes rough-and-ready OCR text; all and sundry may, if they choose to take the time and trouble, amend the text online. In a relatively short time, hundreds of thousands of lines of OCR text have been edited. I certainly endorse the notion of cooperative improvement of data. The dynamic record notion (which was intended in principle to allow enhancement of core records with additional data, wasn't it?) is one approach. I remain sceptical about building a record by tying together pieces of disparate data, though. Whether one wishes to take the work, the expression, the manifestation or the item as the primary focus of cataloguing, what we have to deal with is something that has its own defined, bounded existence (physical or virtual or conceptual) and is individual either as a single object or as a set of what's common between objects. And as for doubts about WEMI, I think it's as good a model as any other scheme I've encountered, not that I think it accounts for everything we deal with, but it does for most. Hal Cain Dalton mcCaughey Library Parkville, victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: snip I raised this question at a FRBR pre-conference last summer in Chicago: Do we really expect catalogers to spend their time establishing works? Or is the question of workhood -- if indeed it needs to be answered -- something that is better left to literary and historical scholarship? The answer I was given was, Well that's what they've always been doing with uniform titles. But is it? To my mind, a uniform title is basically an instruction to collocate items under a fixed, but essentially arbitrary label. ... /snip This is correct but I think we can illustrate it more clearly using subjects (where the function is exactly the same) because we now have http://id.loc.gov/. Within a local relational database that uses an authorities module, the text for Aircraft accidents is replaced in each bibliographic record by a link to a separate table of subjects. Because of this relationship, the text for the subject Aircraft accidents is entered only one time and although the text appears to be in each bibliographic record, it is only a link for searching and display. The actual link in the bibliographic record may be SUB.34568 (totally made up) or whatever the internal mechanics of the database uses. Therefore, when someone clicks on Aircraft accidents in such a database, they are actually searching SUB.34568 while the textual display would also come from that record in the authorities module. This is why, if it changes to Airplane accidents it needs to change only once and through the links, the display would change everywhere. (I won't talk about subdivisions here) The idea is to replace the links within each separate relational database with a standardized URI, e.g. instead of SUB.34568 there would be http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85001323. From here it would work exactly the same as above, except web-enabled, i.e. so long as everywhere there is the concept of Aircraft accidents they would include http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85001323 in some way. This is the backbone of the Semantic Web, as I perceive it, and shows how important we could become. This method could probably work fairly well right now for subjects since there is supposed to be an authority record for every subject. (Ha!) The same goes for names, etc. once they are put online. The problem is that FRBR posits the existence of many things that do not exist, e.g. the work record, the expression record, which as Benjamin points out, with the exception of titles such as Hamlet, have mostly been only a collocation device without an authority record although the text is strictly determined by authorized forms. To enable the collocation/textual display for these parts to work in a similar fashion as the subjects mentioned above, means making lots and lots and lots(!) of URIs for currently non-existent works and expressions. This will drain a lot of our resources, even using automated means, and I fear that there will be far too much room for those tiresome, obscure theoretical disputes that will demand our time, but will be of practically no benefit to our users. So, I completely agree with Benjamin. Do we embark on such an epic journey to create all of these URIs because we need to shoehorn it into theoretical models that were figured out almost 20 years ago? (As some have pointed out, the WEMI model was actually figured out in the 19th century, if not before) Or do we do we say that there is something wrong with the WEMI model itself? I think we still have a choice. I'm a practical kind of guy. Open the data and link what can be linked. Just doing that would improve our status, and information retrieval, substantially. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Weinheimer Jim wrote: This is correct but I think we can illustrate it more clearly using subjects (where the function is exactly the same) ... That's why, some time ago, I suggested to go about work links the same way as with subject headings. I mean, for many important works that are relevant for this purpose, there are records in LCSH already. Enhance these with a subfield for the relationship term and you're done. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Isn't that the way we use MARC 7XX$a$t now, with the relationship in a 5XX note? Field 740 has 2nd indicator 2 to distinguish an analytic from a related work, but not 700 or 710 $a$t. More or less, yes. The relationship subfield you suggest would be something new. But to me, such entries for related works/expressions/manifestations would more at home in MARC 7XX than 6XX. The same authority can serve as the basis for either. That's what I mean. B.E.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added a uniform title and a little, rather informal note and that was it - let the user figure out the usefulness of that. RDA, however, asks for a more detailed inspection because it is a cornerstone of the FRBR model that related works, expressions and manifestations be made transparent and meaningfully presented in a catalog to assist the users in their arduous tasks of finding and selecting the right thing. And this will mean a bit more work, sometimes bordering on literary criticism, delving much deeper into the content than cataloging rules used to require. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added a uniform title and a little, rather informal note and that was it - let the user figure out the usefulness of that. RDA, however, asks for a more detailed inspection because it is a cornerstone of the FRBR model that related works, expressions and manifestations be made transparent and meaningfully presented in a catalog to assist the users in their arduous tasks of finding and selecting the right thing. And this will mean a bit more work, sometimes bordering on literary criticism, delving much deeper into the content than cataloging rules used to require. /snip This is correct, but the amount of additional work remains to be seen, along with questions of maintaining consistency. I suspect training people to reach these levels will be exceptionally difficult based on my own experience of many of the catalog records produced today, where I have seen very little consistency in the use of 6xx$v (which can become very confusing) and with subject analysis in general. If this is the case now, how can we attempt to teach catalogers to achieve a decent level of consistent analysis in, e.g. isAdaptationOf or isTransformationOf or isImitationOf? This will be genuinely new and is probably more confusing than the $v. I am sure that the FRBR relationships are not exhaustive, and there will be campaigns for additional relationships such as isIllogicalConclusionOf or isBadJokeOf or isPlagiarismOf! :-) Again, I think it all comes down to what users need (i.e. the user tasks) and being realistic in what we can achieve. The library community must decide the best ways to allot their resources, and while explicating such relationships may be a nice thing to do and marginally useful for some of our patrons, is it what people want and is it the best use of our resources? (Obviously, I don't think so) Do people just want more reliable access to materials that have been selected by some disinterested experts? Certainly when someone is looking at one resource or metadata for that resource, they need to be aware of other resources in various other ways. But there are many ways to do this task using more informal (i.e. traditional) methods. We should also not forget the Web2.0 possibilities, which may go a long way toward linking records and resources. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de: Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. snip RDA, however, asks for a more detailed inspection because it is a cornerstone of the FRBR model that related works, expressions and manifestations be made transparent and meaningfully presented in a catalog to assist the users in their arduous tasks of finding and selecting the right thing. And this will mean a bit more work, sometimes bordering on literary criticism, delving much deeper into the content than cataloging rules used to require. I find it hard to think that this will happen; at least, not widely. See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf -- a formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title under author's name): Supply if known or can be easily inferred from the item being cataloged. Since the commonest relationship, and the most frequent application of 240, is translation, and not every document discloses the title of the work/expression/manifestation from which it was translated, I can only suppose that the guiding spirits of BIBCO are not serious about the FRBR as applied in RDA. And since I'm sure I've read that LC intends to adopt the BIBCO standard record for at least some of its cataloguing, I suspect that the initial application of RDA will be partial, probably designed to be as much like AACR2 as can be attained. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf -- a formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title under author's name): Supply if known or can be easily inferred from the item being cataloged. One key difference between library cataloging and the web-based concepts in the semantic web work is that the latter sees metadata as being built up as information becomes available. So metadata in a networked environment is additive -- it's not a one-time creation. If one contributor knows the uniform title (Work title), then all linked Manifestations now have access to that title. Also, it appears to me that the RDA Group 1 relationships mix bibliographic relationships and intellectual relationships. Librarians may excel at noting bibliographic relationships, but certain users, such as professors of literature, will be the best source of information on intellectual relationships. In a networked environment, it may be possible for those experts to provide their own view of the bibliographic universe that interests them. (As often happens, this takes us directly back to Vanevar Bush's Memex and the sharing of links.) What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book) that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. If I get a clear enough picture in my head, I'll make a drawing! kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Karen Coyle wrote: What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book) that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. If I get a clear enough picture in my head, I'll make a drawing! While this sounds great, what worries me most is the sorry fact that the MARC universe is practically immovable. Just think of the non-sort indicator or the ommission of the article of the uniform title. For years and years, these issues have been deplored, improvements in MARC specifications have even evolved - and yet nothing happens. And these are very minor issues. It's not the fault of MARC as such, but MARC is the hub of that universe, and any changes at this hub would send disturbances into the farthest corners of it, at the speed of light. So, you would have to build a parallel universe, nothing less, and make the lossless (!) migration to it less expensive than to stay in the old one. But what, BTW, is scenario 0? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
I agree with Karen Coyle's argument, and I share the concern about FRBR concepts pushing catalogers away from the bibliographic detective work that they should be concentrating on, and into something else that they have neither the time nor, frankly, the training and inclination to do. I raised this question at a FRBR pre-conference last summer in Chicago: Do we really expect catalogers to spend their time establishing works? Or is the question of workhood -- if indeed it needs to be answered -- something that is better left to literary and historical scholarship? The answer I was given was, Well that's what they've always been doing with uniform titles. But is it? To my mind, a uniform title is basically an instruction to collocate items under a fixed, but essentially arbitrary label. It recognizes the fact that, in certain circumstances the user is aided by cataloger-intervention, but makes no real claim that the uniform title alone represents a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. After all, most of the rules for uniform title give the cataloger a fairly wide degree of latitude in constructing that title, because it is recognized on some level that it is a device, not an existential statement. (As an aside, a gripe I have, not so much about FRBR, as the way it has been sold, as it were, to catalogers, is that the examples of workhood seem always to be carefully chosen so that the nature and name of the work is obvious or at least non-controversial. I think we all can agree on the workhood of Shakespeare's Hamlet... leaving out those few who are convinced it was penned by Sir Francis Drake, or Queen Elizabeth! But the vast majority of materials that I work with are neither so well known nor well-represented by multiple editions that the task of figuring out exactly what the work is and should be called would I believe take considerable footwork and time.) I like the idea of a recordless view. It pushes us toward looking at the concept a little differently. Work is really just a deduced relationship among various editions. Like all relationships among entities, it should be noted when it is deemed useful, and ignored when it isn't. Instead of establishing works as such we should just be recording statements like: Agency X calls Editions A and B different versions of the same Work, W. More food for thought, B Benjamin Abrahamse Head, Serials Cataloging Section Cataloging and Metadata Services MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:58 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) Quoting hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf -- a formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title under author's name): Supply if known or can be easily inferred from the item being cataloged. One key difference between library cataloging and the web-based concepts in the semantic web work is that the latter sees metadata as being built up as information becomes available. So metadata in a networked environment is additive -- it's not a one-time creation. If one contributor knows the uniform title (Work title), then all linked Manifestations now have access to that title. Also, it appears to me that the RDA Group 1 relationships mix bibliographic relationships and intellectual relationships. Librarians may excel at noting bibliographic relationships, but certain users, such as professors of literature, will be the best source of information on intellectual relationships. In a networked environment, it may be possible for those experts to provide their own view of the bibliographic universe that interests them. (As often happens, this takes us directly back to Vanevar Bush's Memex and the sharing of links.) What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book) that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. If I get a clear enough picture in my head, I'll make a drawing! kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) (fwd)
Bernhard said regarding relationship terms:
[snip]
Practically, these terms will have to be coded, not recorded
verbally, for otherwise international interoperability would suffer.
And for codes, no URIs, please.
[snip]
Conferning relationship of persons to mantifestations, in our
multilingual situation, this seems to me an added reason not to apply
100/110/600/610/700/710 $e for our original cataloguing, unless and
until requested by a customer, e.g., Folger, whose items are usually
unique, and will not be acquired by another client.
As for $4, I doubt most of our client libraries would have an ILS able
to translate codes into terms in the language of the catalogue for
some time.
All clients who have responded have asked that the $e/$4 relators be
removed on export.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Hal Cain said:
Since the commonest relationship, and the most frequent application of
240, is translation, and not every document discloses the title of the
work/expression/manifestation from which it was translated, I can only
suppose that the guiding spirits of BIBCO are not serious about the
FRBR as applied in RDA.
While many of the new standard records call for less than AACR2, and
less than our clients want, e.g., parallel titles for serials,
collation for remote electronic resources, justification for all
added entries, 240 uniform title is one area in which our clients
agree with the simplified standards. Clients do not want a 240 which
differs in language and is not on the item, since they don't have a
record for the item in the original language to which to relate this
record; the display of the unknown title confuses patrons seeking the
known English title under author. They will accept 246 1
$iTranslation of:$aOriginal title, which is less work than a
500/730.
I suspect FRBR will confuse more than help patrons, implying that the
library has items it does not. Just as most items represent the
only work/expression/manifestation by a given author, most items in a
collection are the only manifestation of a work in the collection,
apart from Shakespeare and Bach.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
James said:
True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness
or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added
a uniform title and a little ...
More common in our records are 600$a$t and/or 700$a$t, justified by
notes, to express relationships between works/manifestations.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
But such instances where the WEMI for the library's copy collapse to a single thing, then the library catalog should similarly concatenate the record display to show it as the single item held. This is an implementation and display issue, not a FRBR or record issue. (And I am aware of the historical difficulties with implementation and display.) John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod I suspect FRBR will confuse more than help patrons, implying that the library has items it does not. Just as most items represent the only work/expression/manifestation by a given author, most items in a collection are the only manifestation of a work in the collection, apart from Shakespeare and Bach.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Several decades ago, as a teenager, I had a little life-lesson that I think is relevant to the discussion, if not of Appendix J, then at least to the relationships among derivative works. One Friday, the movie Anna and the King of Siam (1946, Irene Dunn and Rex Harrison) was shown on television. We had the source book at home, so I read it over the weekend, and became annoyed at the distortions in the film. The following Sunday, The King and I was shown on the same network (I knew and loved the music). I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was almost horrified, and angered, at the extent to which the musical took the movie, and only the movie, and distorted it further. I have the feeling nobody involved with the musical ever looked at the original book. I could never again see the play with the same eyes. The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. Misha Schutt Catalog Librarian Burbank (Calif.) Public Library (818) 238 5570 msch...@ci.burbank.ca.us
[RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
I'm pondering the RDA relationships, as defined in Appendix J. I need clarification ... A relationship is between two things. FRBR has lists of Work-Work relationships, Expression-Work relationships, etc. Appendix J lists relationships as either Work, Expression, Manifestation or Item relationships. So... 1) are all relationships in Appendix J between equivalent entities? e.g. are they all Work-Work, Expression-Expression? 2) If not, how can one tell what the two things are that are being related? 3) I don't find some relationships that seem to be key: - Expression of - Manifestation of - Item of - Translation of (Expression as translation of Work) I have other questions, but don't want to muddy the waters ... yet. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
