Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Hi Karen and all, The V/FRBR project (which I left behind a year ago when I left IU for UNC) originally intended to do more than mockups and actually create a working cataloging system, but we ended up not having the development resources to pull that off in the 3-year IMLS-funded project (that ended September 2011). Someone else is welcome to do so, of course! The project after I left did release some basic RDF data (downloadable only, not available in real time via anything like SPARQL); it's at http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/data/rdf/index.shtml. I haven't had the time to examine the final RDF in detail, so I'm not sure to what degree they were in the end able to build on RDA and FRBR defined properties/classes in the Open Metadata Registry vs. using locally-defined properties and classes. But there should be a decent amount of info in the RDF on that page and the OWL ontology and other docs linked from there. Jenn Jenn Riley Head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://cdla.unc.edu/ http://www.lib.unc.edu/users/jlriley jennri...@unc.edu (919) 843-5910 On 11/13/11 8:35 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: Jenn, these mock ups of input pages are great! Is there any chance of hooking them up to an application that would allow folks to play with RDA data? If so, could the data be connected to the registered RDA elements? [1] kc [1] http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm Quoting Riley, Jenn jlri...@email.unc.edu: On 11/9/11 11:33 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views so that people can see beyond MARC Here's one set of mockups, some with screencasts talking through them: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/cataloging To ol/index.shtml. Jenn Jenn Riley Head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://cdla.unc.edu/ http://www.lib.unc.edu/users/jlriley jennri...@unc.edu (919) 843-5910 -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
On 11/9/11 11:33 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views so that people can see beyond MARC Here's one set of mockups, some with screencasts talking through them: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/catalogingTo ol/index.shtml. Jenn Jenn Riley Head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://cdla.unc.edu/ http://www.lib.unc.edu/users/jlriley jennri...@unc.edu (919) 843-5910
[RDA-L] CURATEcamp: Catalogers and Coders, November 2, 2011, Baltimore, MD
(Please forward and cross-promote as you see fit!) Moving to the next generation of library metadata will take intense discussion and planning from both the cataloging and library technology communities. The one-day CURATEcamp: Catalogers and Coders event, held on Wednesday November 2, 2011, as a post-conference to the Digital Library Federation Forum in Baltimore, MD, is an opportunity for metadata specialists and technologists to engage in interactive problem solving and exploration of topics of joint interest, especially in the area of Linked Data. A primary goal is clear articulation of problems related to metadata within the library community, and the beginning of plans that can be taken back to home institutions to address them. This event is being held under the CURATEcamp http://www.curatecamp.orghttp://www.curatecamp.org/, and as such will be structured as an unconference with the agenda for the day being set by participants at the event. The morning will be spent articulating common problems and setting the scope for future work. The afternoon will be spent in groups tackling individual problem statements, and taking the first steps towards planning for solutions. A fuller description of the event is on the CURATEcamp wiki at http://curatecamp.org/content/curatecamp-catalogers-coders-dlf-weds-112, or on the DLF Forum site at http://www.diglib.org/forums/2011forum/schedule/curatecamp-catalogers-coders/. Participants can post ideas for discussion prior to the event at http://wiki.curatecamp.org/index.php/CURATEcamp_DLF_Ideas. Registration for the event, either alone or together with DLF Forum registration, can be found on the Digital Library Federation site at http://www.diglib.org/forums/2011forum/registration/. Jenn Jenn Riley Head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://cdla.unc.edu/ http://www.lib.unc.edu/users/jlriley jennri...@unc.edu (919) 843-5910
[RDA-L] FW: Variations/FRBR project announces release of RDF data and project source code
Please find below some very interesting news regarding a project with which I was previously affiliated. While the RDF for this project isn't available via SPARCQL, hopefully the RDF data itself and the design templates will add to the discussion of RDF/Linked Data in our community. Enjoy! Jenn Jenn Riley Head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://cdla.unc.edu/ http://www.lib.unc.edu/users/jlriley jennri...@unc.edumailto:jennri...@unc.edu (919) 843-5910 From: Dunn, Jon William Butcher Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:57 PM To: 'ml...@listserv.indiana.edumailto:'ml...@listserv.indiana.edu' Subject: Variations/FRBR project announces release of RDF data and project source code (Apologies for cross-posting…) Indiana University announces the availability of several deliverables from the IMLS-funded Variations/FRBR project, all of which are accessible from the project website, http://vfrbr.info. An export of FRBRized data with an RDF binding of the Variations/FRBR data model is available in two forms: a single compressed archive containing all triples, and smaller separate files with batches of triples by entity type. Also available are an ontology in OWL and a set of RDF design templates. All data exports contain data for 80,000 sound recordings and 105,000 scores, based on holdings of Indiana University's Cook Music Library. Project source code is downloadable in four subprojects: persistence, FRBRization, export, and search. The vfrbr-persist project provides tools for creating the MySQL database and Java classes providing connection to the database. The vfrbr-frbrize-marc project provides the tools for FRBRizing MARC records and storing the results in the database. The vfrbr-export project enables XML exports from the database. The vfrbr-scherzo project contains the end-user search interface. All source code is released under a BSD open source license. The Scherzo search interface at http://vfrbr.info/search has been enhanced to include scores as well as recordings. Keyword search is now available, along with a publication date facet, and usability has been improved through numerous small changes. Comments and questions on the Variations/FRBR project may be sent to vf...@dlib.indiana.edumailto:vf...@dlib.indiana.edu. Regards, Jon --- Jon Dunn Director, Library Technologies and Digital Libraries IU Bloomington Libraries / University Information Technology Services Indiana University j...@indiana.edumailto:j...@indiana.edu (812) 855-0953
[RDA-L] Updated XML Schemas for FRBR data (version 1.1) released
The Variations/FRBR Project at Indiana University (http://vfrbr.info) has released version 1.1 of a set of XML Schemas designed for the representation of FRBR (http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records) data in XML. The 1.1 Schema release represents some significant improvements over our earlier 1.0 release, particularly in the handling of FRBR relationships. As before, the Variations/FRBR XML Schemas are defined at three levels: frbr, which embodies faithfully only those features defined by the FRBR and FRAD reports; efrbr, which adds additional features we hope will make the data format more useful; and vfrbr, which both contracts and extends the FRBR and FRAD models to create a data representation optimized for the description of musical materials and we hope provides a model for other domain-specific applications of FRBR. A User Guide with details on the structure of the Schemas and how they relate to one another may be found at http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.1/UserGuide.pdf, and links to all Schemas and documentation may be found at http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.1. We hope this updated Schema release will lead to further discussion of FRBR implementation issues within the community. Comments and questions on the Variations/FRBR Schema release may be sent to vf...@dlib.indiana.edu. Thanks to all the project team members who made this happen. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBRized data available for bulk download
Hi Stephen and all, We’ve made an intentional decision for the V/FRBR project to not use the concept of an aggregate work. The many-to-many nature of Expression to Manifestation for our need adequately models the fact that two symphonies were released on the same disc (for example). For our purposes, there’s no practical (or even semantic in my opinion) benefit to calling those two symphonies by two different composers an aggregate Work. Like others have commented, I also have reservations about the aggregate notion in FRBR as a whole. That has fed into the practical decisions our project has made. Jenn On 10/17/10 9:53 PM, Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu wrote: For those who argue that FRBR defines aggregates as works, I wonder if this is too atomic an approach. If there is an aggregate FRBR work whose contents are expressed in an aggregate FRBR expression and embodied in an aggregate FRBR manifestation, couldn't one reasonably argue that the manifestation is really only the embodiment of that aggregate work, and is rather a container for the other, individuated FRBR works that Variations is working with? Does Variations enable the description of the single aggregate FRBR work that a given manifestation arguably represents? For example, a search on octubafest identifies two work results with that word in the title, but they are individual pieces (Octubafest march and Octubafest polka). Wouldn't FRBR consider the aggregation manifested as Octubafest 1981 and the others like it to be works as well? That said, I've long considered the notion of aggregates as FRBR works to be problematic, so I see a lot to admire in the Variations approach. Stephen On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Riley, Jenn jenlr...@indiana.edu wrote: Dear Bernard and List, My apologies for not responding sooner; I'm impossibly behind in reading listserv email. Comments below. Riley, Jenn wrote: The Variations/FRBR [1] project at Indiana University has released bulk downloads of metadata for the sound recordings presented in our Scherzo [2] music discovery system in a FRBRized XML format. Before digging into this any further, one question: How is the linking between works and expressions effected? On first inspection, I find nothing in the expression data that would indicate the work. The XML format that defines this data (our project efrbr definition; more information at http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/schemas/1.0/index.shtml) doesn't have the concept of a record, just entities and relationships. The XML wrapper can include any combination of entities and relationships - there's no requirement that it be, say, Work-centric (show one Work and all the other FRBR entities with relationships to that Work) or Manifestation-centric (show one Manifestation and all the other FRBR entities with relationships to that Manifestation), though you could easily use the format for either of those purposes. Therefore the big .xml file that has all the Expression data doesn't *have* to have relationships between Expressions and Works to be valid. We simply chose to arbitrarily break the data into individual XML files by entity and relationship type, since there was enough data we knew we had to split it up somehow to keep the file size to something remotely manageable, so this seemed logical. It's just the raw data - a system using it could index and store and update it however it likes. All the relationships are there, though, spread across all of the files. Relationships between Works and Expressions can be found in the file realizedThrough.xml. I suspect the link to be via the file realizedThrough.xml, because between manifestation and expression, there's the file embodiedIn.xml which seems to be the link between the two. However, I'd have expected the relationship between E and M to be 1:n, yet it seems to be the opposite. Can you elaborate on this matter? You've switched to talking about the relationship between Expression and Manifestation rather than Expression and Work, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot. You're correct that embodiedIn.xml lists relationships between Expression and Manifestation. (Note realized through and embodied in are terms right out of the FRBR report to describe these relationships.) The relationship between Expression and Manifestation is n:n (many to many). A given Expression be embodied in any number of different Manifestations, and a given Manifestation may embody any number of different Expressed Works. In embodiedIn.xml, each element efrbr:embodiedIn describes the relationship between one Expression and one Manifestation. This statement, however, doesn't mean that's the only Manifestation of that Expression, or the only Expression that appears on that Manifestation. Instead, these are just tiny statements of fact. To find all the Expressions on a given Manifestation (which is only one
Re: [RDA-L] FRBRized data available for bulk download
Yes, what Karen said. (Thanks, Karen!) That's exactly how we look at it. So a Manifestation does have Expressed Works in it (to answer your question Jonathan), just more than one in many cases. Since more than one is OK, no need for aggregates. Jenn -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBRized data available for bulk download Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: My understanding of the FRBR model is that it insists that _all_ manifestations belong to an expression which belongs to a work. This is what leads to aggregates neccesarily being works -- you've got a manifestation in front of you which is clearly an aggregate. So the manifestation must be part of a work. If you look at the simple Group1 diagram: http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/fig3-1.jpg you see that a manifestation can manifest more than one expression. So there are two (at least) ways to go: 1) consider the aggregate a manifestation and an expression and a work; but that doesn't explain why manifestation and expression are many-to-many 2) consider an aggregate a manifestation of more than one expression, and each expression expresses a single work (note the arrows between expression and work -- each expression can express only one work). It seems to me that the aggregate form (#1 here) completely negates the separation between work, expression and manifestation -- we get back to traditional cataloging where we've only got one thing -- which is defined by the manifestation. It also means that once again just about every publication becomes a separate thing and we are back to showing our users long lists of bibliographic records for the same text. If that's the goal, why did we bother with FRBR in the first place? What does it gain us? kc Possibly it would be better/more flexible to allow manifestations that do not in fact belong to any expression or work; but I'm not sure, it gets confusing to think about. I think maybe a manifestation neccesarily has to belong to an expression and a work for the model to make any sense -- but that doesn't mean the work it belongs to actually needs to be _modelled_, it can just be an as-of-yet-un-modelled work, that will be modelled only when/if it is useful to do so. Curious how you are handling this in terms of the model exactly though, I'm confused. Riley, Jenn wrote: Hi Stephen and all, We’ve made an intentional decision for the V/FRBR project to not use the concept of an aggregate work. The many-to-many nature of Expression to Manifestation for our need adequately models the fact that two symphonies were released on the same disc (for example). For our purposes, there’s no practical (or even semantic in my opinion) benefit to calling those two symphonies by two different composers an aggregate Work. Like others have commented, I also have reservations about the aggregate notion in FRBR as a whole. That has fed into the practical decisions our project has made. Jenn On 10/17/10 9:53 PM, Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu wrote: For those who argue that FRBR defines aggregates as works, I wonder if this is too atomic an approach. If there is an aggregate FRBR work whose contents are expressed in an aggregate FRBR expression and embodied in an aggregate FRBR manifestation, couldn't one reasonably argue that the manifestation is really only the embodiment of that aggregate work, and is rather a container for the other, individuated FRBR works that Variations is working with? Does Variations enable the description of the single aggregate FRBR work that a given manifestation arguably represents? For example, a search on octubafest identifies two work results with that word in the title, but they are individual pieces (Octubafest march and Octubafest polka). Wouldn't FRBR consider the aggregation manifested as Octubafest 1981 and the others like it to be works as well? That said, I've long considered the notion of aggregates as FRBR works to be problematic, so I see a lot to admire in the Variations approach. Stephen On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Riley, Jenn jenlr...@indiana.edu wrote: Dear Bernard and List, My apologies for not responding sooner; I'm impossibly behind in reading listserv email. Comments below. Riley, Jenn wrote: The Variations/FRBR [1] project at Indiana University has released bulk downloads of metadata for the sound recordings presented in our Scherzo [2] music discovery system in a FRBRized XML format. Before digging into this any further, one question: How is the linking between works and expressions effected? On first inspection, I find nothing
[RDA-L] FRBRized data available for bulk download
The Variations/FRBR [1] project at Indiana University has released bulk downloads of metadata for the sound recordings presented in our Scherzo [2] music discovery system in a FRBRized XML format. The downloadable data includes FRBR Work, Expression, Manifestation, Person, and Corporate Body records, along with the structural and responsibility relationships connecting them. While this is still an incomplete representation of FRBR and FRAD, we hope that the release of this data will aid others that are studying or working with FRBR. This XML data conforms to the efrbr set of XML Schemas [3] created for this project. The XML data may be downloaded from http://vfrbr.info/data/1.0/index.shtml, and comments/questions may be directed to vf...@dlib.indiana.edu. One caveat to those who seek to use this data: we plan to continue improving our FRBRization algorithm into the future and have not yet implemented a way to keep entity identifiers consistent between new data loads. Therefore we cannot at this time guarantee the Work with the identifier http://vfrbr.info/work/30001, for example, will have the same identifier in the future. Therefore this data at this time should be considered highly experimental. Many thanks to the Institute of Museum and Library Services for funding the V/FRBR project. Also, if you're interested in FRBR, please do check out our experimental discovery system: http://vfrbr.info/search. We're very interested in your feedback! Jenn [1] V/FRBR project home page http://vfrbr.info; FRBR report http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records [2] Scherzo http://vfrbr.info/search [3] V/FRBR project XML Schemas http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.0/index.shtml Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
[RDA-L] FRBRized music search system available
Indiana University is pleased to announce the public (very Beta) release of Scherzo, a music discovery system designed as a testbed of the FRBR conceptual model. The system may be accessed at http://vfrbr.info/search. A product of the IMLS-funded Variations/FRBR project, Scherzo is an early proof of concept for what a library catalog built according to FRBR principles might look like. The current released system is most certainly not a finished product; rather it represents an attempt to share in-progress development work with interested individuals. It is (and will continue to be) far from perfect, and the Variations/FRBR project team hopes these very imperfections help to promote community discussion on the utility of the FRBR model and how feasible mechanisms to automatically FRBRize MARC bibliographic and authority records are likely to be. We welcome and intend to participate in public discussion on this system and the issues it raises. In addition, specific feedback may be sent to vf...@dlib.indiana.edu. Scherzo currently contains records representing approximately 80,000 sound recordings from the holdings of Indiana University's renowed William and Gayle Cook Music Library in the Jacobs School of Music. Work on Scherzo to date has focused most heavily on FRBR Work identification from MARC and basic results display in a FRBRized environment. While we have paid some attention to user interface design, it is not our project's primary concern. The search system currently resides on a test server; while we expect the service to be generally available, please excuse any temporary down time or unexpected restarts. In the relatively short term, we have a number of planned improvements to the system, including a keyword search, improved Work identification processes, representing more specific roles that Group 2 entities have to Group 1 entities (beyond created by, realized by, and produced by defined in the FRBR reports), and bulk download of the source data powering this system in XML. In the slightly longer term we hope to make the source data available as Linked Data as well. For more information, you may see detailed specifications for our MARC to FRBR record transformation http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/mappings/spring2010/vfrbrSpring2010mappings.shtml, or the project home page http://vfrbr.info. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBRized music search system available
And the system is down already. :-) This is how experimental systems go sometimes. If you're interested and get an error message, check back again an hour or so later. Jenn -Original Message- From: Riley, Jenn Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:54 PM To: 'f...@infoserv.inist.fr'; 'A listserv for Metadata Librarians'; ml...@listserv.indiana.edu; auto...@listserv.syr.edu; iaml- l...@cornell.edu; music...@listes.ircam.fr; RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: FRBRized music search system available Indiana University is pleased to announce the public (very Beta) release of Scherzo, a music discovery system designed as a testbed of the FRBR conceptual model. The system may be accessed at http://vfrbr.info/search. A product of the IMLS-funded Variations/FRBR project, Scherzo is an early proof of concept for what a library catalog built according to FRBR principles might look like. The current released system is most certainly not a finished product; rather it represents an attempt to share in-progress development work with interested individuals. It is (and will continue to be) far from perfect, and the Variations/FRBR project team hopes these very imperfections help to promote community discussion on the utility of the FRBR model and how feasible mechanisms to automatically FRBRize MARC bibliographic and authority records are likely to be. We welcome and intend to participate in public discussion on this system and the issues it raises. In addition, specific feedback may be sent to vf...@dlib.indiana.edu. Scherzo currently contains records representing approximately 80,000 sound recordings from the holdings of Indiana University's renowed William and Gayle Cook Music Library in the Jacobs School of Music. Work on Scherzo to date has focused most heavily on FRBR Work identification from MARC and basic results display in a FRBRized environment. While we have paid some attention to user interface design, it is not our project's primary concern. The search system currently resides on a test server; while we expect the service to be generally available, please excuse any temporary down time or unexpected restarts. In the relatively short term, we have a number of planned improvements to the system, including a keyword search, improved Work identification processes, representing more specific roles that Group 2 entities have to Group 1 entities (beyond created by, realized by, and produced by defined in the FRBR reports), and bulk download of the source data powering this system in XML. In the slightly longer term we hope to make the source data available as Linked Data as well. For more information, you may see detailed specifications for our MARC to FRBR record transformation http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/projectDoc/metadata/mapping s/spring2010/vfrbrSpring2010mappings.shtml, or the project home page http://vfrbr.info. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Hal Cain Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities You'll note that there I'm speaking as a user, rather than as a cataloguer. The cataloguing is important but the user's search is the determining characteristic for assessing usefulness. And if 79% of works in WorldCat exist in only a single manifestation and expression (as I seem to recollect) it may be we're constructing problems where none exist. I think it's important to put that number in context. It's actually 78% (of Works in WorldCat that exist in a single Manifestation), and that number is presented in Bennett, R., B. F. Lavoie, et al. (2003). The concept of a work in WorldCat: an application of FRBR. _Library Collections, Acquisitions, Technical Services_ 27/1: 45-59. However, that and some related statistics are *immediately* followed by a discussion of why that number shouldn't be interpreted as evidence that FRBR isn't useful. The article in fact explicitly concludes that FRBRization demonstrates several potential benefits in library catalogs. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
On 11/11/08 4:04 AM, Weinheimer Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) For example, the fact that Google stopped development of OAI-PMH (using only DC!) in favor of XML Topic Maps is a huge development. Imagine that you are a publisher, or any other producer of non-MARC records (i.e. anybody who is not a library), are you going to go in the direction of our directives or in Google directives? (snip) (snip) Just a quick technical correction, but one that makes a HUGE difference in understanding this space: Google dropped support for OAI-PMH in favor of XML *Site* Maps http://sitemaps.org/, a very low-barrier protocol originally developed by Google but now supported by many major search engines, to better expose URLs to search engines for harvesting. Google does not support (to my knowledge, and it would be a big deal if they did!) the highly structured and robust metadata encoded in XML *Topic* Maps (one serialization of the overall topic maps idea) http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/. Support for Site Maps goes in the quick and easy to implement but with fewer advanced services that can be build on it direction, where as support for Topic Maps would have gone in the opposite direction. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
In trying to analyze the attributes of work and expression in FRBR i am vastly puzzled. Language is given as an attribute of expression (presumably because it may be translated so may vary between expression--though it's helpful to know what is the original when that can be determined). But then why is musical key an attribute of the work? Can't music be transposed? Is the standard edition of Lucia di Lammermor a different work than the autograph version because of all the key differences? Hi Greta, In the analysis of how FRBR applies to music we did here at Indiana University http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/docs/v3FRBRreport.pdf we also came to the conclusion that key was a needed attribute of expression, because new arrangements are new expressions, not new works, and arrangements often are in different keys to fit a new instrument or voice. I recall hearing from someone involved with the FRBR Review activity (Pat, was that you?) afterward that our point was well-taken and that FRBR really should have this information at the Expression level. I checked the FRBR listserv archives and don't see this comment there, so it must have been in an individual email I can't find just at this moment. If key is an expression attribute, should it then not be a work attribute? I find it useful to think of a work in a key (it's one of the things we routinely include to differentiate one composer's Symphony #1 from another!) but I think your analogy to language is apt. Is a musical work in a key any more or less than a work is in a language? If the work is so abstract it doesn't have words, then is the musical work so abstract it doesn't have a key? It's too conceptual of a question for me on this lovely afternoon in southern Indiana. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: Measuring quality of cataloguing
I would like to think that Mac's definition of quality cataloging is one that all catalogers share. We do not adhere to rules just for the sake of adhering to rules; we adhere to rules in order to provide accurate and thorough description of resources that facilitates access to materials. OK, but you need to take that a step further - what exactly is it that users of some type we care about can do because a record is accurate or thorough that they can't do if it's not? (What does thorough mean anyways? The record doesn't say the book is blue. Isn't that missing information? Couldn't you say the record is then not thorough? Well, yes, but what purpose does it serve and do we care about that purpose to the degree that we'll put money behind it? These are the discussions we need to have.) We have to be more specific than facilitate access - what real-world discovery needs do we know about that will be affected by a record that doesn't meet this quality metric? We're no longer at the point where we can afford to say that correctness is an end unto itself - there are too many other things we could be doing. The book chapter Diane mentioned in response to an earlier message does an excellent job of outlining, for each quality metric proposed, what its significance is. I think as we continue to be asked why cataloging/metadata is necessary, we're going to need to make cogent arguments such as these in order to get anywhere. Traditional cataloging is not the root of all evil. Oh, come now, nobody in this discussion said it was. We'll get farther, amongst ourselves, and with administrators and the other powers that be, if we stick to the point. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: Metadata for Proceedings of the Symposium on Art and Music ...
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Perfection is not an attainable goal. Which, indeed, should not stop us from exersizing quality control and improvement. But the way we do that is by being honest about the quality of what we've got, that it's not perfect, that it will never be perfect, but that we can try to make it better. As a starting point, more studies on the _actual_ quality of our cataloging records would be welcome (there are all sorts of things you can measure, not neccesarily any one single measure of 'quality'. Any of those things being measured would be welcome). The fairly substantial body of literature on cataloging quality tends to define quality as conforming to cataloging rules. I'd like to see much more work in this area that defines quality as something closer to allows user x to do y, which has been shown in z as a real-world need. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: Mutually exclusive motivations
I know this sounds complex, but in fact it's less complex and less ambiguous than our current collection of Dublin Core, MARC, MODS, et al., because those have little or nothing in common at their bases, and therefore create problems when cross-walking. I think Karen's point here is absolutely key. Crosswalking between metadata formats isn't just a mechanical process of changing tag names. Even when two metadata formats express the same underlying conceptual model, crosswalking can be challenging. When two metadata formats express different underlying conceptual models (whether spelled out formally or not), it becomes much more difficult. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: Modernization
Jenn said: The full rich semantics of the field definition shouldn't be imparted into a simple field label in English, any more than it should be to a numeric code for a label. Mac said: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. You are advocating uniform title as prime entry and uniform title as filing title to be used for labels? These to be somehow linked to the same phrases in other languages? I'm advocating the notion that the label doesn't much matter, as the real meaning of the field will have to be defined in (potentially extensive) human-readable text elsewhere, whether you use a numeric label or a textual one. That human readable documentation will need to exist in as many languages appropriate for those who will be using the record format. ... surely the same people who are expected to read some documentation to learn and interpret the meaning of a numeric code can be expected to read some documentation in their native language to learn and interpret the meaning of a language-based (alphabetic) field label that may or may not be in their own language, no? Why should they have to? What is the advantage? Will you be wanting subject headings on spines rather than class numbers next? 130 doesn't mean anything inherently to a person, so outside documentation is needed to teach them what that label signifies in this context. My position is that the very same outside documentation will be needed if the field is labeled uniform title as prime entry, blahblahblah, or some clever one- or two-word label that gets the gist across but leaves out lots of impportant information. Moving to textual labels doesn't mean the entire definition (or even part of it) has to be embedded in the label. The label is arbitrary - we need a good balance between that arbitrariness and features (like the mnemonics Mac mentions) that help a person remember all the complexities of what the label means so they don't have to look it up every single time. A good balance could be found either with numeric or textual labels, in my opinion, especially if we hide the field labels behind a nice user-friendly interface in the cataloger's language. And I do think it's OK to ask people to refer to documentation when learning and using these standards. People do this now - there's lots of documentation out there that says what MARC 130 is, and that's how people learn how to use it. I've had the same conversations Robin Wendler refers to in another message in this thread, where people look at the label and assume they know what it means when in reality they guessed wrong. But, surely, if we make it easy to get to this documentation, and make it succinct and user-friendly, we can reduce this problem to a great extent. I don't believe this downside of textual labels outweighs the reminder benefits using them would gain. Jenn
