Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
11.01.2012 21:14, Gene Fieg: Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose English was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things that can be done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a sentence should be subject, verb, object. As it stands now, who knows what anything means and we end up with constant interpretations of muddy language. The rewriting will be an interesting exercise. Chris Oliver should be on it right now, and will hopefully report on the experience afterwards. The language is strongly influenced by database technicians' manners of speaking. One must of course get those people to better understand the nuts and bolts of our craft, so it might be no bad idea to keep the current version as one of eventually several (or as the publishers will hope, many) language versions. On paper, the RDA text suffers from reduncancy which results from the attempt to make every paragraph understandable when displayed alone, outside its context. The term they are using is, I think, rewording, not rewriting, and that will mean that the arrangement of chapter and verse will remain exactly as it is. Thinking of said redundancy, the task will not become easier because of that, but without that restriction, the whole thing might spin out of control and into utter confusion. No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the chance of RDA succeeding anyway? I think the MRI business of Mac and Michal Gorman, together with the Open Cataloging Rules approach of Jim Weinheimer, have all the potential to lead into a future for cataloging that is both affordable and sustainable, open for more, inviting for collaboration across borders, and down to earth. The circumstances given will not change significantly, I think, before there is a new data model plus codification in a manageable, learnable, implementable, and efficient MARC replacement. Under the present circumstances, RDA implementation - if not going way beyond the test data! - could hardly justify the expense. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 12/01/2012 12:12, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the chance of RDA succeeding anyway? I think the MRI business of Mac and Michal Gorman, together with the Open Cataloging Rules approach of Jim Weinheimer, have all the potential to lead into a future for cataloging that is both affordable and sustainable, open for more, inviting for collaboration across borders, and down to earth. The circumstances given will not change significantly, I think, before there is a new data model plus codification in a manageable, learnable, implementable, and efficient MARC replacement. Under the present circumstances, RDA implementation - if not going way beyond the test data! - could hardly justify the expense. /snip And this expense comes at a highly critical time. I am still in a state of shock about the finding of poverty in the United States! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/ In such a climate, I think we can all safely assume that finding additional money for libraries will probably take a back seat to more vital concerns for quite a long time. There is currently a very interesting email discussion going on, on the alcts-eforum list, talking about The Incredible Shrinking Cataloging Department, where people are talking about how they are dealing with less staff for more work. On the bright side, there does appear to be some hiring, and replacement of cataloging staff is going on, but the major trend seems to be outsourcing through shelf-ready copy. One interesting observation was that when a cataloger leaves or retires, in many libraries there is not the previous automatic response to replace the position, but to reconsider what are the needs of the library as a whole. Also, there appears to be an increase in the use of students, when possible. Naturally, the new data models and methods and rules should be tested (should have been long ago) to discover if they meet the needs of the *public* better than what we have now. Still haven't seen it, but I won't bore everyone with going over that ground again. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
[RDA-L] Major conference on libraries and the Semantic Web, 26-27 April 2012
Please hold these dates! (And forgive any duplication in posts ...) *April 2012 marks the fifth anniversary of the Data Model Meeting [1] at the British Library, London attended by participants interested in the fit between RDA: resource description and access and the models used in other metadata communities, especially those working in the Semantic Web environment. This meeting, informally known as the “London Meeting”, has proved to be a critical point in the trajectory of libraries from the traditional data view to linked data and the Semantic Web.* DCMI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative) and others will host a one-day seminar on Friday 27 April 2012 to describe progress since 2007, mark the anniversary, and look to further collaboration in the future. Speakers will include participants at the 2007 meeting and other significant players in library data and the Semantic Web. Papers from the seminar will be published by DCMI and available freely online. The seminar will be preceded by inaugural meetings of the new DCMI Vocabulary Management Community [2] and DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group [3] on Thursday 28 April 2012 which will be open to all. The venue for both days is the British Library, St Pancras, London. The London Meeting stimulated significant development of Semantic Web representations of the major international bibliographic metadata models, including IFLA’s Functional Requirements family and the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), and MARC as well as RDA itself. Attention is now beginning to focus on the management and sustainability of this activity, and the development of high-level semantic and data structures to support library applications. This is a preliminary announcement; further information will be circulated in due course and published via [2] and [3]. Diane Hillmann (Moderator, DCMI Vocabulary Management Community; Co-Chair, DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group) Gordon Dunsire (Co-Chair, DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group) [1] http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/meeting.html [2] http://dublincore.org/groups/vocabulary-management/ [3] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Bibliographic_Metadata_Task_Group
[RDA-L] Site for cataloging rules
For those looking for some info on current and to-be cataloging rules, try this link out: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/cataloging-ru Aaron had sent a post but the url was broken, but there was enough in it for me to search on Google for Common cataloging rules and one of the things I got was the above. Thank you Aaron. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Site for cataloging rules
I meant to say I searched the phrase cooperative cataloging rules on Google. Not in quotes. On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: For those looking for some info on current and to-be cataloging rules, try this link out: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/cataloging-ru Aaron had sent a post but the url was broken, but there was enough in it for me to search on Google for Common cataloging rules and one of the things I got was the above. Thank you Aaron. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas, lots of stimulating thought in your latest post. I'll just comment on some bits. These are contributor relationship designators between persons (or corporate bodies or families) and expressions. But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s). ( http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) Therefore, something like illustrator as a contributor to an expression is problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an expression of a separate work, not part of the expression of the original work. So the illustrator shouldn't really have a relationship to an expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA designator artist) of an illustrative work that augments another work. Thanks for pointing out the difference between an illustrator and e.g. a translator. We tend to think of these functions as being quite similar as we have typically treated them alike, but indeed according to FRBR they are rather different. The problem is that In cases where we don't want to handle augmented editions as aggregate works but still want to bring out the illustrator, we need some entity for him or her to link to. It doesn't really matter in an ordinary MARC file where the levels of work, expression and manifestations are all muddled together anyway. But in other scenarios, it would. The report would then have the two works (original work and illustration) realized as two expressions found together in an aggregating expression. Careful here. Just as the aggregating work doesn't contain the individual works, the aggregating expression does not contain the expressions of the individual work. It really is extremely tricky... For example, in this light, here's how I would recast what an illustrator is Illustrator - is a person who supplements (or augments) a work by creating an illustrative work that is expressed with an expression of the work I like this definition very much. That tiny designator, illustrator packs quite a punch -- it carries within it a notion of a work (the illustrative work), and it points to the two expressions combined together that form a specific, augmented expression that explicitly realizes only one work -- the original primary work. The problem is: what to make of that augmented expression. Is it two expressions realizing two works? Or is it one expression explicitly realizing one primary work, but also capturing a hidden relationship to another work via the relationship designator illustrator? If we model it in FRBR, I think it should look like the figure 2 in my additional diagrams paper ( http://tinyurl.com/7j85e5u ); the only difference is that I used an introduction as example, and not illustrations. So I don't think we should have an augmented expression at all (which also means, I do not agree with RDA 20.2.1.1 in this respect). If we then decide not to bring out the augmentation in a FRBR like way in actual cataloging, what happens is that the bit of the picture around E (W2) simply disappears, or rather, is just not carried out. The same goes for the aggregate work itself. Now the problem is that we'd still want to keep the information of the augmentor (is there a real English word for this?) who would - if correctly modeled - be the creator of a part of the aggregate work. So we need to transpose the creator of the illustrations to some other entity, which is actually there in real life cataloging. I don't think there is a neat way of doing it, so you'll have to make a compromise whatever you do. In RDA, these are attributes of expressions that point to augmentations that in principle are expressions of other works: 7.12 Language of the Content Examples: Commentary in English In Polish; tables of contents and summaries in Polish, Russian and English 7.14 Accessibility Content Example: Closed captioning in German 7.15 Illustrative Content Example: illustrations 7.16 Supplementary Content Example: Includes index Quite true. I hadn't realized the question of aggregate works arises in so many places. The definition of aggregate as being more than one expression in a manifestation leads to a paradox with an expression of a collective work. If it's one expression, then there is no aggregate, by definition, as there is only one expression embodied in a manifestation. But if each work has its component works identified, then there are suddenly many expressions embodied in the manifestation. In this case there still really shouldn't be an aggregating expression and aggregating work, because the original collective work has all the roles covered. Who's left to do the
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
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: January-12-12 3:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates These are contributor relationship designators between persons (or corporate bodies or families) and expressions. But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s). ( http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) Therefore, something like illustrator as a contributor to an expression is problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an expression of a separate work, not part of the expression of the original work. So the illustrator shouldn't really have a relationship to an expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA designator artist) of an illustrative work that augments another work. Thanks for pointing out the difference between an illustrator and e.g. a translator. We tend to think of these functions as being quite similar as we have typically treated them alike, but indeed according to FRBR they are rather different. The problem is that In cases where we don't want to handle augmented editions as aggregate works but still want to bring out the illustrator, we need some entity for him or her to link to. It doesn't really matter in an ordinary MARC file where the levels of work, expression and manifestations are all muddled together anyway. But in other scenarios, it would. There's an example I've come across that demonstrates the problem. Large print books can exclude such augmentations as bibliography, index, and illustrations on plates found in the regular print version. In RDA, there would be two expressions for each case (but still only one work), whereas the report on aggregations would have one main expression and several smaller ones that would only be noted (and there would be this unusual aggregating expression entity, at least in principle, for the aggregate manifestation with the augmentations). I think there is logic for both approaches. But I can recall with dismay when I was younger that there were versions of Lord of the Rings that were missing the appendixes. I felt cheated when I picked up such a version, since I wasn't getting the whole deal. In such a situation I would definitely come down on the side of saying this was a different expression. I would avoid any publications that had this truncated expression. But I also recognized that there were special illustrated editions with illustrations by Alan Lee, which meant that there were gradations in considering what were acceptable and ideal versions (or expressions). Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the primary work (a phrase found in RDA at 20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA 7.15 has illustrative content as illustrating the primary content of a resource. So maybe there is a soft way of handling augmented expressions, with elements like relationship designators (like illustrator) that convey this complexity in indirect ways. If there's a primary work, there would be a primary expression, and a cluster of elements that fall just outside this boundary but still forming a uniquely identified expression entity. There are other ways of categorizing entities like these ( FRBRoo has a wider range http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0.1.pdf for a number of different circumstances). The definition of aggregate as being more than one expression in a manifestation leads to a paradox with an expression of a collective work. If it's one expression, then there is no aggregate, by definition, as there is only one expression embodied in a manifestation. But if each work has its component works identified, then there are suddenly many expressions embodied in the manifestation. In this case there still really shouldn't be an aggregating expression and aggregating work, because the original collective work has all the roles covered. Who's left to do the aggregating? The original creator(s) responsible for the different works in the collective work have already done the arrangements. I'm not sure I understand which case you mean here. But thinking about it, it is certainly true that the model of the Working Group is non-recursive. If we think of two different collections which have first been published
