Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
Thomas Brenndorfer said: In several early chapters in RDA there is only a thin blue line separating the movement from manifestation attributes to item attributes, and from work attributes to expression attributes. For an example of a boundary, see the blue separator Other Identifying Attributes of Expressions above RDA 6.9 (Content Type). For RDA Ch. 4 (Providing Acquisitions and Access Information), the attributes can be applied to either manifestations or items. This can be seen more clearly in the RDA Element Set view (under the Tools tab), which has a hard FRBR breakdown of WEMIPFCBCOEP and all subordinate elements organized by attribute elements and then relationship elements. True, works and expressions are treated very close together in RDA. And it's certainly also true that the boundaries between the WEMI entities are not always clear-cut, and there is sometimes room for discussion and different interpretations. But I still find it very hard to accept that BIBFRAME in its first draft (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem to accommodate for modeling a work in the abstract FRBR sense - at least not in the bibliographic part of BIBFRAME. Perhaps it would be possible to model a FRBR work in the Authority section of BIBFRAME, as obviously a FRBR work can be a subject. I share Robert Maxwell's concern, though, that BIBFRAME here seems to codify a certain form of technical implementation, namely that of bibliographic vs. authority data. A really modern data framework should, I believe, be more flexible than that. The report provides a good rationalization for its own approach, which is at a sufficiently high abstract level to account for data organization by other communities: The goal of the Bibliographic Framework Initiative is to develop a model to which various content models can be mapped. This recognizes that different communities may have different views of their resources and thus different needs for resource descriptions. This is especially pronounced as one leaves the book/text media and considers images (still and moving), cartographic resources, archival collections, and ultimately cultural artifact and museum collections. Many content models define hierarchical relationships that need to be restated in RDF graph terms and then simplified to the BIBFRAME model. For example, the origin of the Work/Instance aspects of the BIBFRAME can reflect the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph rather than as hierarchical relationships, after applying a reductionist technique to simplify things as much as possible. Formally reconciling the BIBFRAME modeling effort with an RDA-lite set of cataloging rules is a logical next step. (pg. 15 - http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf) Well, maybe it's just me, but I'm not really sure what they mean with reflecting the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph (...) after applying a reductionist technique. Some more information would have been nice. It would also have been good if the BIBFRAME paper gave some insight in the motives for digressing from FRBR. Because, although I expressed some doubts in my last mail, in fact I am certain that they've read the FRBR report... Also, I really don't like the word RDA-lite in this paragraph. BIBFRAME must also accommodate for RDA-full. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A. Hochschule der Medien Fakultät Information und Kommunikation Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188 Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868 Fax. 0711/25706-300 www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer: Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for trained catalogers to grasp. ... and to apply consistently end efficiently. 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. You are turning more and more radical. Honest analysis - once it were done - might well confirm you, however. Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI, it can be done now with the right catalog software. Once it were proved necessary. LT and GBS have both found some demand for it, and come up with their own solutions, not exactly along our lines of thinking and not exactly with much success (in the case of GBS at least). 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. Wasn't that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed miserably because it did not create a format but left that to implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes. The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very different from the idea of records as self-contained entities, and so it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context. Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day. Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
snip Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day. Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon. snip How soon we get some input from Zephira (those who should know more...) will show us how much value they place on RDA. In the absence of any response, a certain amount of discussion seems entirely appropriate. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: 26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer: Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for trained catalogers to grasp. ... and to apply consistently end efficiently. 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. You are turning more and more radical. Honest analysis - once it were done - might well confirm you, however. Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI, it can be done now with the right catalog software. Once it were proved necessary. LT and GBS have both found some demand for it, and come up with their own solutions, not exactly along our lines of thinking and not exactly with much success (in the case of GBS at least). 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. Wasn't that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed miserably because it did not create a format but left that to implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes. The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very different from the idea of records as self-contained entities, and so it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context. Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day. Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
24.11.2012 11:37, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: ... BIBFRAME simply _must_ be able to model RDA data in the necessary granularity and specificity. That should indeed go without saying. And besides, it ought to be integrated with RDA documentation as well, so as to enable linking in both directions. When using the BIBFRAME documentation, as soon as it will replace MARC, it must be possible to find pertinent rules for any data element, and the other way. That means, BIBFRAME will have to become integrated into the Toolkit. As well as with other rules it will be employed to support. Data entry and editing have long since been in need of enhancements in these regards. Now, finally, the chances should be realized. And I mean, what chances does RDA stand for optimal implementation if there is suboptimal support at the input and editing stage. Or only unaffordable support! And that raises another question: Before engaging in heated debates about all sorts of big issues as well as detail, we need to know who will eventually be the owner of BIBFRAME and in what form and under what conditions it will be made available: liberally like MARC, or under a global monopoly licensing scheme like RDA. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
One of the first things I noticed was the example that showed Tunnel books as a subject. While this may reflect (incorrect) MARC 21 coding as 650, the resource/work being described is clearly not ABOUT tunnel books, it IS a tunnel book. The correct MARC coding of course would be either 655 and/or 380. Any new framework model needs to understand that genre/form is not the same as subject, and both need to be accommodated. ^^ 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 http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
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
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
At one level I don't see the work and instance discussion in the paper of any greater significance than RDA's penchant for preferring a content vs carrier distinction in the organization of the earlier chapters in RDA. In several early chapters in RDA there is only a thin blue line separating the movement from manifestation attributes to item attributes, and from work attributes to expression attributes. For an example of a boundary, see the blue separator Other Identifying Attributes of Expressions above RDA 6.9 (Content Type). For RDA Ch. 4 (Providing Acquisitions and Access Information), the attributes can be applied to either manifestations or items. This can be seen more clearly in the RDA Element Set view (under the Tools tab), which has a hard FRBR breakdown of WEMIPFCBCOEP and all subordinate elements organized by attribute elements and then relationship elements. The report provides a good rationalization for its own approach, which is at a sufficiently high abstract level to account for data organization by other communities: The goal of the Bibliographic Framework Initiative is to develop a model to which various content models can be mapped. This recognizes that different communities may have different views of their resources and thus different needs for resource descriptions. This is especially pronounced as one leaves the book/text media and considers images (still and moving), cartographic resources, archival collections, and ultimately cultural artifact and museum collections. Many content models define hierarchical relationships that need to be restated in RDF graph terms and then simplified to the BIBFRAME model. For example, the origin of the Work/Instance aspects of the BIBFRAME can reflect the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph rather than as hierarchical relationships, after applying a reductionist technique to simplify things as much as possible. Formally reconciling the BIBFRAME modeling effort with an RDA-lite set of cataloging rules is a logical next step. (pg. 15 - http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf) Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: November 24, 2012 5:37 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced 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
