On 10/16/13 4:22 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
In some ways, FRBR strikes me as the catalogers' answer to the miserable
seven layer OSI model which often confuses rather than clarifies -- largely
because it doesn't reflect reality very well.
Agreed. I am having trouble seeing FRBR as being beneficial, much less
necessary. However, there is a wide-spread assumption that FRBR's WEMI
will be implemented as a four-level, linked set of hierarchical
entities, rather than that FRBR is a conceptual model (which is what the
FRBR documentation says). If there are reasons to present users with
works, expressions and manifestations, nothing in that requires a
physical model that looks like some kind of relational database design.
Yet, that seems to be what many people assume. So I'd like to expose
that myth, or at least provide a way to discuss it.
kc
kyle
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, that's my take as well, but I think it's worth quantifying if
possible. There is the usual trade-off between time and space -- and I'd be
interested in hearing whether anyone here thinks that there is any concern
about traversing the WEM structure for each search and display. Does it
matter if every display of author in a Manifestation has to connect M-E-W?
Or is that a concern, like space, that is no longer relevant?
kc
On 10/16/13 12:57 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
If anyone out there is really making a case for FRBR based on whether or
not it saves a few characters in a database, well, she should give up the
library business and go make money off her time machine . Maybe --
*maybe* --
15 years ago. But I have to say, I'm sitting on 10m records right now, and
would happily figure out how to deal with double or triple the space
requirements for added utility. Space is always a consideration, but it's
slipped down into about 15th place on my Giant List of Things to Worry
About.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/16/13 12:33 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music,
laws,
selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The
70.1
figure from the stripped 245 is probably closer to the mark
Yes, you are right, especially for the particular purpose I am looking
at.
Thanks.
IMO, what you stand to gain in functionality, maintenance, and analysis
is
much more interesting than potential space gains/losses.
Yes, obviously. But there exists an apology for FRBR that says that it
will save cataloger time and will be more efficient in a database. I
think
it's worth taking a look at those assumptions. If there is a way to
measure
functionality, maintenance, etc. then we should measure it, for sure.
kc
kyle
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, Roy (and others!)
It looks like the 245 is including the $c - dang! I should have been
more
specific. I'm mainly interested in the title, which is $a $b -- I'm
looking
at the gains and losses of bytes should one implement FRBR. As a hedge,
could I ask what've you got for the 240? that may be closer to reality.
kc
On 10/16/13 10:57 AM, Roy Tennant wrote:
I don't even have to fire it up. That's a statistic that we generate
quarterly (albeit via Hadoop). Here you go:
100 - 30.3
245 - 103.1
600 - 41
610 - 48.8
611 - 61.4
630 - 40.8
648 - 23.8
650 - 35.1
651 - 39.6
653 - 33.3
654 - 38.1
655 - 22.5
656 - 30.6
657 - 27.4
658 - 30.7
662 - 41.7
Roy
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sean Hannan <[email protected]>
wrote:
That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
-Sean
On 10/16/13 1:06 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[email protected]> wrote:
Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields
in
some
reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
Thanks,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
