From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:16 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe

On 13/05/2013 20:48, Mitchell, Michael wrote:
<snip>

... 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.
</snip>

I personally don't know if it is helpful not to think in terms of "records". 
From the public's point of view, and that of the catalogers and anyone other 
than a systems person, they will experience a totality of the information 
associated with a specific information resource, and we will interpret that as 
a "record".[...]
Therefore, calling them "records" and thinking about them in that way is fine 
in my opinion, because that is what everyone will continue to experience.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>
===========================================================================

The difference I see is that to my mind "record" implies a database entry with 
fields and subfields. BibFrame will not entail database records, fields, or 
subfields. It will be much closer to an XML file which is quite different 
structurally and semantically from a database record although I realize 
crosswalks are common. You can call it Frank but it still is a different animal 
with a different structure and some content rules will fit it better than 
others.
My apologies if I took us off topic on this tangent. I don't mean to belabor 
the point but I do think the more we can understand where, and where we are 
not, headed with RDA and BibFrame, the better we can understand what is 
important to address now (punctuation, capitalization?). I also think the more 
of us catalogers involved in BibFrame development the better the fit will be in 
the end. There seem to be precious few practicing catalogers in the mix now. I 
don't know much about the info sci end of the development but I do know 
cataloging and can cry foul when I recognize a problem.


Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu



Reply via email to