But that's the Select user task at play in this discussion. Users can select from amongst a result set, or they can pre-filter search results with limits, or algorithms can produce relevancy ranked results. Current catalogs have all kinds of responses. But the backdrop still would have all the primary relationships established. It's not as if we wouldn't be setting those relationships in anticipation that the only search result forced on users is to display all of them.
The holdings screen is a good example of how flexibility can be built in. There can be pre-filters on availability (available copies only); there can be automatic sorts based on location (local physical branch copies displayed first), there can other filters and sorts based upon other criteria. Or users can see ALL items and choose from among them because that logic is encoded from the ground up. As for the RDA Chapter 17 objectives, the question is quite simple: does the resource contain the specific work or expression or not? Set the value. Encode and design search engines as one pleases. It's the same principle for the authority controlled form of an author's name. This is so we can find ALL resources attached to the person within the library. A user can continue to find or select a resource (that ONE book) as needed, but that's based upon other criteria that's captured in elements and made available for displays or indexes or search engines. Without a convention that links the resources to the person in a consistent fashion, the resource stands or falls on its own -- cataloging imposes order on the resources. Cutter's objectives continued where he does imply "all" books ... 2. To show what a library has (D) by a given author (E) on a given subject (F) in a given kind of literature 3. To assist in the choice of a book (G) as to its edition (bibliographically) (H) as to its character (literary or topical) The main differences today are the expansions on these terms: "what" and "book" are expanded into Group 1 entities; "author" is expanded into Group 2 entities; "subject" is expanded into Group 3 entities (which subjects can contain Group 1 and Group 2 entities). The latter point is important. A user may know of a work, but may not know that there was another book written about the work (a subject relationship). In order to FIND that other work, a relationship needs to be established and this needs to be part of what is presented to the user. The user may not be aware of any search criteria to use to find the other book-- part of the purpose of the catalog is to show the user the relationships between resources and allow them to explore or navigate the terrain (and EXPLORE is a FRSAD user task). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: June-06-12 11:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Work manifested" in new RDA examples On 6/6/12 8:16 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: > > The users that benefit from seeing all the resources that embody particular > works and expressions include those with roles in acquisition, preservation, > and reference. The idea that it's OK to not necessarily find all the > resources is an odd assertion in this discussion thread. Thomas, I think the question is whether this is the only possible retrieval result. There is a difference between someone who wants or needs ALL and someone who wants or needs A. That difference is exemplified in search engine results, which retrieve ALL but offer to the user SOME by employing ranking, with the assumption (which I think can be proven) that the user who wants ALL is in a small minority. ALL is available, but is by no means the default. One area where I think library catalogs are weak is that they seem to have only one type of response, and that response is often the one suitable for the minority of users. kc > > The name-title string is still the basis behind how catalogs functions. I > don't think they're ideal, and whether they're adequate is often dependent on > how well a system can handle them. > > As a case in point, the first web-based catalog I used could have hyperlinks > attached to name-title headings. That's great -- except the 1XX+24X fields > would not be caught in this net, even though those fields mean exactly the > same thing as the 7XX name-title heading-- an identifier for a work. This was > less than adequate and would mean anyone who clicked the link would get some > related works but not all of them, and in fact, genearlly not the main ones > that the library held because those were represented with the preferred title > overlapping the 245 title proper. > > Thomas Brenndorfer > Guelph Public Library > > > ________________________________________ > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] > Sent: June-06-12 1:51 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Work manifested" in new RDA examples > > Thomas said: > >>> The Find user task needs to be satisfied. In card catalog conventions, the >>> main entry heading collocates related works. Using some sort of >>> (standardized) method for the value of the "Work manifested" means that >>> other works can specify something that will link back to the work in this >>> mix of data. The objective in RDA 17.2 is: >>> >>> "Find>>all<< resources that embody a particular work or expression" -- >>> this implies some convention is needed beyond a set of loosely related >>> elements like Creator and Title proper. > I very much doubt that having a name-title string in the data is an > adequate tool to satisfy this user task, at least unless there are > additional mechanisms in place. > > Somebody who wants to "find _all_ resources that embody a particular > work" (let's leave out the expression level for the moment), certainly > would have a right to expect the following possibilities in order to get > there: > - keyword searching > - using any name (preferred or variant) for the first creator > - if there is more than one creator: searching for one of the other > creators instead of the first creator, again using any name (preferred > or variant) > - using any title for the work (not only the uniform title, but also any > other title under which it has been published, e.g. the title of a > translation) > > In a world of composite descriptions and current catalog technology, I > can think of three approaches to achieve this: > > 1. Linked authority records: > Every title record would have to be linked to an authority record for > the work. > > 2. Expansion of title records for use with search engine technology: > Every title record would have to be expanded with the necessary > information (especially variant names for creators and variant titles > for the work). This could then be indexed in a catalog based on search > engine technology. > > 3. Work clustering algorithms: > In a first step, only _one_ manifestation of the work in question has to > be found (it doesn't matter which). In a second step, all manifestations > belonging to the same work are retrieved by making use of a work > clustering algorithm. > > Method 3 may be especially interesting. In German catalogs, which > already have links to authority records for persons and corporate bodies > (which means that variant names can be used for searching), it should be > easy to retrieve at least _one_ manifestation of a certain work, even if > a variant title for the work is used (provided the catalog is of a > certain size and also includes a fair sample of material in different > languages). Also, there are already implementations of work clustering > algorithms which work reasonably well. For instance, in some Primo > catalogs, other manifestations of the same work are automatically > retrieved and can be displayed by clicking on a button. Of course, we > also know the "view all editions and formats" link from WorldCat. > > I believe that ideas like this are one of the reasons for the German > decision to implement RDA in scenario 2 instead of aiming at scenario 1. > It is felt that FRBRization can be achieved by technical measures and be > shown on a surface level (only "virtually", as it were), without having > to change too much in the underlying data structures itself. > > Having to create an authority record for _every_ work, as it would be > necessary for method 1 (and perhaps also for method 2, as the work > information obviously must come from somewhere), seems to be a daunting > task. But now I come to think about it, I wonder: Wouldn't it be > possible to generate work authority records automatically? Based on work > clustering, we could e.g. collect all variant titles for a work from the > various manifestations. Maybe this is a direction worth looking at. > > I'm sure there are more methods than the three I've mentioned. And of > course, linked data, could also play a part (one possibility of handling > variant personal names could be a tool which makes use of VIAF in RDF, > for example). > > Heidrun > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
