On 15 Feb., Jim Weinheimer sighed:
... really tough to reach any kind of agreement, ...
Well, what are the items then that we can now regard as agreed upon?
Some candidates seem to be these:
1.
We have, I think, a consensus that FRBR is a refinement of ideas that
have existed for a long time
On 15/02/2012 18:06, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Jim, is it all of FRBR that you see as problematic, or just WEMI? It
seems to me that Groups 2 and 3 are equivalent (more or less, but
mainly more) to what we have today as name and subject authority
files. Do you find those unworkable? Would you
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com 2/15/2012 2:31 PM
But I tire of stating the same points over and over again.
I very
Bernhard said:
From all I've seen and read about the matter, I don't believe that
BiBframe will come up with something delightfully elegant and
practicable.
If *something* will come out of BibFrame, and that's not a small
if, then I'm really afraid it will be declared elegant but turn out
I agree, I appreciate your point of view, James. In addition, thanks to
all for bringing up these concerns and suggestions. I find them very
helpful.
Shirley Thomas shirley.tho...@chemeketa.edu
Cataloger
Chemeketa Community College Library
Salem, OR
I very much appreciate that you are
I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a platform.
They don't exist there in the first place. The user tasks exist OUTSIDE any
platform and reside WITH the USER.
No matter what tool or platform is used, there has to be sufficient hooks
associated with the
On 16/02/2012 19:57, Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a
platform. They don't exist there in the first place. The user tasks
exist OUTSIDE any platform and reside WITH the USER.
No matter what tool or platform is used, there has
Žumer, Maja, Marcia Lei Zeng, Athena Salaba. FRBR: A Generalized Approach to
Dublin Core Application Profiles. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 2010.
Pisanski, Jan and Maja Žumer. Mental Models of the Bibliographic Universe.
Part 1:
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: February 16, 2012 3:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is
RDA the Only
Everything I have been reading here assumes that the public wants the FRBR
user tasks.
No, you have been creating straw man arguments by making it seem ridiculous
that users want to know technical terms and mechanisms to conduct searches.
The point you have missed is that it isn't a question
James Weinheimer wrote:
I am simply asking, where is the proof that the public wants the FRBR user
tasks, and so much more than other options? And please, do not point
everyone in the direction of the rules of Panizzi or Cutter, or Ranganathan's
laws. In fact, I would say that because things
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: February 16, 2012 5:09 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way
On 2/16/12 2:10 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
James Weinheimer has continually asserted on this list and others
that no user wants:
I think a viable approach would be to ask if there are user information
seeking activities that we think are not covered by the FRBR user tasks.
Where can we
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: February-16-12 9:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively
On 2/15/12 1:02 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
This seems to be a potential area of agreement and what I tried to talk
about a little in Buenos Aires. While you seem to think that people want
to do the FRBR user tasks more than I believe they do, it doesn't matter
because the catalogs as
On 15/02/2012 16:01, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
People love keyword searching and immediately preferred it to the older methods.
That's understood to be one aspect of the Find user task. Left-anchored
searching does not equal the Find user task, but is only one way to accomplish
it.
On 2/15/12 8:22 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
In my opinion, seeing the informational universe only through
FRBR-colored glasses is not a road to the future, but can lead us only
to extinction. We must adapt to whatever surprises and unpleasantness we
find.
Jim, is it all of FRBR that you see
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
[weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: February-15-12 11:22 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the
I still think the WEMI model (or 'ontology') is in fact _crucial_ for
linked data applications, rather than problematic.
Linked data applications rely on taking data from multiple sources, and
being able to tell when it's about the same 'thing'.
But what is a 'thing', in the 'bibliographic
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: February-15-12 12:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the
On 2/15/2012 12:47 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
For example, routinely adding the translator relationship is such an obvious
way to distinguish translations, yet this has not always been done. Likewise in
adding the illustrator relationship for distinguishing expressions. It's easy
to
On 2/15/12 9:53 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Yep, I think this is an example of how the FRBR WEMI ontology is a
useful shared mental model _for us_ ('us' being anyone that produces
bibliographic metadata), in analyzing our own work and sharing it with
each other. Regardless of whether it
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: February 15, 2012 2:52 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way
On 2/15/2012 2:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
You refer to FRBR as a mental model. The FRs themselves often call
themselves conceptual models. I'm fine with FRBR as a mental model,
but not so much with it as a data model. I think that FR as a data
model is problematic. Anyone can use whatever
On 2/15/12 12:32 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
But I believe strongly that it's important when creating
and sharing data that we know whether the data is about a particular
manifestation, a particular expression, or a work as a whole.
I suggest reading A Renear's article on the futurelib page
On 2/15/2012 4:47 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
On 2/15/12 12:32 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
But I believe strongly that it's important when creating
and sharing data that we know whether the data is about a particular
manifestation, a particular expression, or a work as a whole.
I suggest reading
On 15/02/2012 18:24, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Of course I have read the documents, and much, much more besides. I understand
RDA and FRBR,
If you remove the FRBR tasks from an Amazon page you will have a blank page.
Remove identifying elements (title, author, publisher, ISBN).
Remove
On 13/02/2012 22:36, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Also this statement seems to echo a mistake James Weinheimer made: We have to help users
find what theyare looking for when they don't already know an author or a title, and
RDA doesn't help with this.
I can't find where I stated this
Your
Am 14.02.2012 09:58, schrieb James Weinheimer:
... and above all, free the data so that we can all
discover what people really want.
And free the rules as well!
If we want an open standard, it needs to be open access.
Besides, it must be even more difficult to make a business case for
rules
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
[weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: February-14-12 3:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the
On 2/14/12 4:59 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
The evidence to the contrary is that ILS vendors are looking for ways to
incorporate FRBR into their catalogs. The latest I've heard is that
Bibliocommons is doing that. FRBR will help leverage content from multiple
libraries, and
On 14/02/2012 16:36, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
My stance is that the public does
not want or need the FRBR user tasks in the vast majority of searches they
make. I certainly don't need them most of the time, and I understand all of
that better than 99.99% of the
James Weinheimer wrote:
Do you know how you search when you are looking for information? I
already wrote about this, on this list a few years ago, in fact in a reply to
you,
available at http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-
bac.gc.ca/msg02048.html.
Okay, here's the example you
On 14/02/2012 19:14, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
Do you know how you search when you are looking for information? I
already wrote about this, on this list a few years ago, in fact in a reply to
you,
available at http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-
James Weinheimer wrote:
If you read my actual post, you will see what I was actually searching for,
which was something quite different.
Okay, I get it now. The question as it was originally asked by the user
doesn't reflect a typical kind of thing users are looking for. When they say
These two articles:
PISANSKI, Jan, ŽUMER, Maja. Mental models of the bibliographic universe
: part 1 : mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation,
2010, vol. 66, no. 5, str. 643-667. [Preprint ]
PISANSKI, Jan, ŽUMER, Maja. Mental models of the bibliographic
universe : part 2 :
On 2/13/12 1:31 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Karen Coyle wrote:
The relationships are new and are the best thing to come out of FRBR.
But I'm not sure that those relationships couldn't have been used
without the rule changes of RDA. Could we have taken the elements of
AACR and MARC and combined
On 14/02/2012 22:17, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
Okay, I get it now. The question as it was originally asked by the user
doesn't reflect a typical kind of thing users are looking for. When they say
they're looking for a book, they're not really looking for a book. Users are
only looking
On 2/14/2012 4:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Yet we valued the new cataloging rules enough to fund those.
Hmm, or certain entities thought they could make enough money selling em
to make it a good investment.
Which has it's own problems, yeah. (a standard that you need to pay to
see is much
One of the useful results from those studies is that it shows that users'
mental models of the bibliographic universe can affect how they search for
information. Some of the results reflect FRBR well, in that it's important to
distinguish expressions from manifestations. Elements that assist in
James Weinheimer wrote:
So, reference questions must fall into certain specific guidelines to be
considered a typical kind of thing users are looking for? Wow! Quite a
statement. You may be interested in another posting I made about a
reference question about Wikileaks
Karen Coyle wrote:
Unlikely because it isn't logical/reasonable, or unlikely for other
reasons?
Unlikely for the reason you then went on to mention:
What I see is that we have a long history of supporting the creation of
cataloging rules, and not much history of supporting technology
Karen Coyle wrote:
On 2/13/12 12:07 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
It's easier to think of RDA as the AACR2 element set. What would AACR2
look like if it was analyzed using current data models? It would look like
RDA.
It sounds like you are supporting the view of some RDA critics who
Am 13.02.2012 15:33, schrieb Tillett, Barbara:
Readers of this list may be interested in the various publications
describing how RDA will keep us relevant in the Web environment and
remind us of what is wrong with AACR2 (as repeatedly pointed out during
the 1990's and since then). Relevant RDA
The US RDA Test Coordinating Committee's report of 9May2011 has a section of
Findings: Costs and Benefits, p. 105-111. You will find that report on their
Web site:http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/
Please note that was an independent study done by the Library of Congress, the
Am 13.02.2012 15:57, schrieb Tillett, Barbara:
The US RDA Test Coordinating Committee's report of 9May2011 has a
section of Findings: Costs and Benefits, p. 105-111. You will find
that report on their Web
site:http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/
That will be this paper then:
The only business justification that I can imagine is that the LC
administration has decided to waste more taxpayers funds in pursuit of
fancy ideas therefore creating justification for their own existence in
this process.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
--
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public
I do think it's worthwhile pointing out that status quo has no established
business case.
Being stuck in the flat file structure of the catalog of yore is painful to the
extreme, and was the basis for much of the drive over the last twenty years in
finding ways to improve catalogs and the
Karen Coyle wrote:
Developing the cataloging rules before making sure that we
can create viable modern data is putting the cart before the horse.
In regard to carts and horses: this is a rather popular analogy that I have
addressed before, and most recently in an article called RDA: End of
On 13/02/2012 17:33, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Jim acknowledges some of the issues that we face today in his
presentation, but unfortunately concludes, once again, that the
solution is to be found in cataloging rules. (That could be because
his talk was focused in that direction.) Cataloging
On 2/13/12 11:03 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
RDA is extremely valuable in defining the elements and relationships. While
the instructions by themselves are not at all important for development of the
technical side of the future bibliographic framework, the RDA element set is
crucial.
I
On 13/02/2012 18:09, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
I do think it's worthwhile pointing out that status quo has no
established business case.
/snip
I do not understand this. Are you saying there are no justifiable
reasons for libraries as they stand currently? I hope that librarians
can
Karen Coyle wrote:
The relationships are new and are the best thing to come out of FRBR.
But I'm not sure that those relationships couldn't have been used
without the rule changes of RDA. Could we have taken the elements of
AACR and MARC and combined them with the entities and relationships
Kevin Randall said:
The *reason behind* the change regarding abbreviations (and other
changes such as media terminology) is one part of what RDA is about,
and that reason would be making the metadata easier for the user to
understand.
I've never found a cataloguer, a client, nor a library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: February-13-12 8:14 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the
55 matches
Mail list logo
