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
