Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
On 14/05/2013 15:03, Mitchell, Michael wrote: > ** > > 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. > What I am trying to point out is that the future situation will not be all that much different fundamentally from the way it is now. Our current records in our databases are not now sitting there as database records, comprised of fields and subfields. (Except for CDS-ISIS databases, at least) What we perceive as single records are actually cut-up and scattered hither and yon among all kinds of different tables, sometimes even duplicating the information for internal purposes. If you are able to examine the tables themselves, everything seems to be complete chaos. But when you view information for a specific resource however, the system uses specific internal numbers to bring everything together to provide coherence, so that you can get an OPAC display of a single resource, or another display for a cataloger. In both cases, people perceive these as single bibliographic or authority records but within the system they are not. The new format will be similar, I am sure. This is why I say that it is proper to speak of "records" since that's the way we speak of them now and essentially the same situation will apply. Stlll, BIBFRAME will be quite different from MARC21, but MARC21 is a *communications* format. True MARC21 records are used only for the split-second when records from one library catalog (stored in relational database format) are transferred into another using Z39.50. Once the record is brought into the second catalog, it is then sliced and diced according to the second relational database, probably in quite different ways than it was in the first catalog. The new type of format should allow other programs to use BIBFRAME records (that is, to "communicate" with them) much more easily in all kinds of ways. But those other programs will do much the same thing: they will slice and dice the BIBFRAME records in ways they prefer, probably in ways that we would consider to be very strange. It doesn't seem as if the work of the cataloger will change much (except new words for the same things) and catalogs themselves will probably not change all that much either from what they can do now. Lucene-type indexing can improve immensely. Our records already can ingest all kinds of records and they could do a lot more if we wanted, and our catalogs could include many more mashups. Libraries will be able to build APIs much more easily. The biggest difference people will see will be that other sites will be able to use our records (that's the idea of linked data after all) and, if we are lucky and webmasters actually decide to use our records, we will see them in all kinds of places outside of library catalogs. This will be very strange but at least that would show that they are being used. Although I agree with the BIBFRAME project and it should have been done long before RDA was ever begun, to be honest, it is still not completely clear to me who BIBFRAME is aimed at. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
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: ... 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. 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
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
The BIBFRAME Work In the current draft does now have the expressionOf and hasExpression properties defined so a BIBFRAME Work could be either a FRBR Work or a FRBR Expression (or presumably some other kind of creative work used by another scheme), which does happily mean we can carry on talking about Expressions. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: 10 May 2013 21:39 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 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..
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
On 13/05/2013 20:48, Mitchell, Michael wrote: > ... 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. 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". This is similar to how people refer to a "webpage" when it is now almost never a single file of information, but a unified whole that brings in many, perhaps hundreds, of associated files, and we relate to all of those files as a single page. This is how browsers work. For instance, look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/. See how it loads, how it brings in information and interacts with all kinds of other sites. 99% of this the public does not need to know, e.g. here is only one of their stylesheets that helps the browser display the page correctly: http://static.guim.co.uk/static/f8df97e0df9f9797bda45deb8c5c707dc4e88eaf/common/styles/network-front-grid.css This Guardian page is far from the most complex page that exists. Behind the scenes, it is impossible to predict how everything is structured because there are zillions of ways to decide to display any webpage, plus systems people change those ways constantly for all kinds of reasons, both internal and external. Opposed to this are the earlier/earliest pages that really were single pages of codes and information, such as Tim Berners-Lee's original web page: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html. The first pages I made were just like his. To see this today is like looking at the stone axes of pre-historic man. The way catalog records are stored today in a relational database is not single records either. The information we experience as a single bibliographic record is broken into all kinds of tables, each interlinked in a variety of ways. Strangely enough, when it comes to the newest methods that I know of, such as with Lucene indexing, it works only with flat files (in other words, single records more or less as they have been traditionally understood, that Lucene calls "documents") and there is a completely separate index the computer searches. When someone finds something they want and click on it, they then see the "document". One of the reasons I am bringing this up is that for human beings, they will still be experiencing something that displays the information related to a resource. This may be displayed completely or partially. This is exactly what we see today. For instance, if someone searches for the work of Tolstoy's War and Peace by using the uniform title http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22tolstoy%22+ti%3A%22voina+i+mir%22&qt=results_page you can see it in a multiple display as here, or you can choose to see an individual record. In most catalogs, the individual record can display in an abbreviated form in various ways or in full. This is no different from the way Google and all other search engines work, where people can see the various "hits" (equivalent to multiple display) or click into an individual item (equivalent to record display). It's also the way FictionFinder worked, which more or less recreated the old book catalog displays except FictionFinder was interactive. (I discussed this earlier http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2009/11/fw-ngc4lib-frbr-wemi-and-identifiers.html) These views of individual record/multiple records will probably change very little unless or until somebody comes up with something completely 100% different. Of course that has its own problem: if it is too different then people will probably have troubles understanding it. The other reason I am bringing this up is because there is absolutely no way that anybody will be able to predict or determine what the structures will be behind the pages/records that people see. Each information system will be built according to its own parameters and those parameters will change. 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 *Fir
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
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:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
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 (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
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 (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
Just to clarify, our MARC Bib records are not strictly Manifestation
records, they are compilations of Manifestation data + Work data +
Expression data crammed into single record. Unfortunate, but what we are
stuck with for the time being. 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.
RDA thinking is not the same as AACR thinking, and we have to learn to think
RDA if we are making RDA records. If we don't want to think RDA, then no one
is stopping us from continuing to make AACR records, but we cannot make RDA
records using AACR thinking.
I agree that we cannot expect uniformity in this learning period, but that
does not mean that we should not strive for it wherever possible.
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:02 PM
To: debo...@marcofquality.com
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms --
Bibframe
Deborah Fritzs said:
>In the meantime, if we are making RDA records, then we have to use the
>RDA elements in the way that RDA defines them; just as we have to (if
>only it were true) use MARC elements the way that MARC defines those
elements.
RDA has so many options, and so many fuzzy directions, that we will not have
uniformity. As you said, we are now only doing manifestation frecords.
There will be many versions of what is "correct". When in doubt, the litmus
should be what assists patrons. This may mean for example 300 $a1 board
book (12 unnumbered pages)... to get that information in brief display,
and/or a summary specific to the edition (aka instance, manifestation).
For decades SLC has used AACR2 by analogy in this way, and one by one the
things we did at client request made it into AACR2 rule revisions (or in the
case of producer of unpublished material, into RDA). I suspect the same
will happen with RDA. In the meantime, we should not hamper our patrons
because of rule lacuna.
I suspect it will be worse with Bibframe, in that ambiguity of language
muddies the meaning of tags.
For example "bf:]ublisherdescription": if the tag refers to
abstract/summary, librarians have not thought of that as "description"; by
"description" we mean the transcribed elements (MARC 2XX-4XX). These
abstracts/summaries come from many sources other than publishers (as another
poster has pointed out). Are we to have a tag for each source? Many of our
DVD 520s come from IMDb. Will we have a tag for them if "who" is important?
The way MARC handles source in many field is a subfield source code; in
quoted 5XX it is
dash (two hyphens) and source. The source is not incorporated into
the tag.
This bf tag is unfortunate in both of the words chosen; there are many
abstract/summary sources other than publisher, and the abstract/summary is
not what we understand by "description". The tag should be
"bf:abstractsummary", with a means of recording source if wished.
We do ourselves no favours by repurposing words. (I seem to recall having
this conversation with neo orthodox theologians decades ago; what is said is
not what is heard.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
Deborah Fritzs said:
>In the meantime, if we are making RDA records, then we have to use the RDA
>elements in the way that RDA defines them; just as we have to (if only it
>were true) use MARC elements the way that MARC defines those elements.
RDA has so many options, and so many fuzzy directions, that we will
not have uniformity. As you said, we are now only doing manifestation
frecords. There will be many versions of what is "correct". When in
doubt, the litmus should be what assists patrons. This may mean for
example 300 $a1 board book (12 unnumbered pages)... to get that
information in brief display, and/or a summary specific to the edition
(aka instance, manifestation).
For decades SLC has used AACR2 by analogy in this way, and one by one
the things we did at client request made it into AACR2 rule revisions
(or in the case of producer of unpublished material, into RDA). I
suspect the same will happen with RDA. In the meantime, we should not
hamper our patrons because of rule lacuna.
I suspect it will be worse with Bibframe, in that ambiguity of
language muddies the meaning of tags.
For example "bf:]ublisherdescription": if the tag refers to
abstract/summary, librarians have not thought of that as
"description"; by "description" we mean the transcribed elements
(MARC 2XX-4XX). These abstracts/summaries come from many sources other
than publishers (as another poster has pointed out). Are we to have a
tag for each source? Many of our DVD 520s come from IMDb. Will we
have a tag for them if "who" is important? The way MARC handles
source in many field is a subfield source code; in quoted 5XX it is
dash (two hyphens) and source. The source is not incorporated into
the tag.
This bf tag is unfortunate in both of the words chosen; there are many
abstract/summary sources other than publisher, and the
abstract/summary is not what we understand by "description". The tag
should be "bf:abstractsummary", with a means of recording source if
wished.
We do ourselves no favours by repurposing words. (I seem to recall
having this conversation with neo orthodox theologians decades ago;
what is said is not what is heard.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
We have no way of knowing, yet, what Bibframe will end up as--it is still very much a work in progress, Thomas shows with the addition of "hasExpression" and "expressionOf". In the meantime, if we are making RDA records, then we have to use the RDA elements in the way that RDA defines them; just as we have to (if only it were true) use MARC elements the way that MARC defines those elements. - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee > Elrod > Sent: May-09-13 9:10 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms" > > Deborah said concerning incorporating expression level format into 520: > > >It might not seem to matter so much with our mixed-up MARC bib > >records, especially in the 500 general note fields, but it will > >matter a great deal in the future that we use the correct element for > >the data that we > provide. > > Expression level does not exist in Bibframe, only work / instance / > authority / annotation. So why are we concerned with expression level data? http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html has recently added the RDA-derived properties "hasExpression" and "expressionOf" to the Work resource type. The top level resource types (Work, Instance, Authority) can contain further subtypes. For example, Bibframe Authority is similar to MARC authority records for persons, corporate bodies, and subjects. The Bibframe Work resource type splits off work and expression data from MARC authority records for works and expressions, and combines them with data for works and expressions found in bibliographic records. Bibframe Work is essentially a new way of capturing work and expression data that was once done in MARC authority records, and adds data for works and expressions found repeated in bibliographic records. This is very much in keeping with RDA chapters 6 and 7 which group together all data associated with works and expressions, including instructions for authorized access points, regardless of this data being found scattered in MARC authority or MARC bibliographic records. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: May-09-13 9:10 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms" > > Deborah said concerning incorporating expression level format into 520: > > >It might not seem to matter so much with our mixed-up MARC bib records, > >especially in the 500 general note fields, but it will matter a great > >deal in the future that we use the correct element for the data that we > provide. > > Expression level does not exist in Bibframe, only work / instance / authority > / > annotation. So why are we concerned with expression level data? http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html has recently added the RDA-derived properties "hasExpression" and "expressionOf" to the Work resource type. The top level resource types (Work, Instance, Authority) can contain further subtypes. For example, Bibframe Authority is similar to MARC authority records for persons, corporate bodies, and subjects. The Bibframe Work resource type splits off work and expression data from MARC authority records for works and expressions, and combines them with data for works and expressions found in bibliographic records. Bibframe Work is essentially a new way of capturing work and expression data that was once done in MARC authority records, and adds data for works and expressions found repeated in bibliographic records. This is very much in keeping with RDA chapters 6 and 7 which group together all data associated with works and expressions, including instructions for authorized access points, regardless of this data being found scattered in MARC authority or MARC bibliographic records. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
