Mac,
You keep referring to "records" and as I understand Bibframe there will
no longer be "records. There will be data points and triplets instead. This
will be a critical difference and as Deborah says about RDA thinking will be
even more true about Bibframe. This frame shift from records to relational data
points (I know, I still don't have the terminology down) is a big reason why
I'm so skeptical of anything to do with RDA. I understand that RDA is trying to
create rules for more discreet content entry (better data points) but I just
think we are spinning our wheels for the most part until Bibframe is closer to
development. This is not to take away from the many folks who have been and are
working hard on the implementation of RDA but "we've" designed a cart before we
know if we're going to hook it to a horse or a jet.
Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
Deborah Fritz said:
>A change in Expression data in a MARC Bib >record means a change in
>Expression when we get the data out of MARC and into ... whatever.
The only "whatever" on the horizon is Bibframe. Like MARC, Bibframe has no
expression record. I suspect expression data in Bibframe will be divided
between Work and Instance records, mainly instance ones, unless "work" is more
narrowly defined. "Thinking RDA" will make "expression" relevant in neither
MARC nor (without major revision) Bibframe.
So let's stop talking about expressions for now. Apart from the complicated
arrangement of RDA, the concept is irrelevant to creating recprds in MARC.
unless greatly changed, in Bibframe..
Deborah, I suspect we differ less than this discussion implies. If there is a
difference between us, my guess is you are more wedded to the letter of the
rules, while I am more wedded to their spirit. No finite set of rules and
cover all possibilities, so we must fall back on analogy. No
work/expression/manifestation theory should impede our records containing the
data patrons need, in the most efficient way possible. Field 520 is where we
convey the nature and content of what we have. That may differ amongst
instances.
If/when we have Bibframe work/instance records, I assume abstract / summary
will be repeating, as 520 is now. If we can't change the abstract / summary in
the work record as displayed with instance data, a second abstract / asummary
might be in the instance record. For use, it is better to have the data which
began thhis discussion in zn exact field, i.e.. repeating 520 in MARC, as
opposed to 500, or whatever the Bibframe equivalent of 500 may be.
There are also ;egacy records with 520s, which may apply to the work or to the
instance. That distinction can not be made by automted means.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
