Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
We have to keep in mind that XML as such is not on the same level as
MARC. It is a punctuation standard and as such can only replace ISO2709,
whereas MARC is a grammar and as such can be replaced, in the XML
context, only by a Schema. So I suppose that's what you
Weinheimer Jim schrieb:
I believe that XML formats of MARC are far more flexible than you appear
to believe--certainly far more flexible than any ISO2709 head-breaking
format. I wouldn't have opted in my article for MARCXML, probably a
variant MODS, Dublin Core, or even made up a unique XML
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
The necessary migration to something new can only
begin on a scale worth mentioning once there is a robust, extensible,
and well-tested schema that can accomodate all the important elements
and support all the vital functions. Then, nothing convinces more than a
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
... If that, who's taking up the challenge?
Unfortunately, I believe other organizations are, such as Google.
Now the Google approach to making information findable is an _entirely_
different one. For their general search engine, they rely not on
metadata at all but on
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Now the Google approach to making information findable is an _entirely_
different one. For their general search engine, they rely not on
metadata at all but on statistical and algorithmic evaluation of text as
it is, and in huge quantities, setting huge arrays of
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
The new worldview according to RDA is here:
http://www.rdaonline.org/ERDiagramRDA_24June2008.pdf
That's an entity-relationship diagram. (Can anyone sketch a relational
database design based on it? Would that be practicable? Would it scale?)
I don't think it's
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
But here is exactly where everything begins to disintegrate: which will
be the preferred form in the universe of the World Wide Web? Will
everyone be expected to use the English form? (I doubt that very
much) The German? The Czech?
Here's where the VIAF idea comes in. It
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Here's where the VIAF idea comes in. It was conceived _because_ not
everybody wanted to use English forms. And it may be the best
starting point currently in existence to support your vision!
With VIAF in place, a user may enter any form of name, and as long as
VIAF
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
What exactly do you want to say here?
Do you really mean relational databases? I see this term frequently
used erroneously instead of entity-relationship databases. The word
relational in RDBS does precisely not say that the database cares
about relations between
See, I don't think the techniques we're talking about here are really
specific to rdbms or entity-relational databases.
The idea of using a unique identifier to build a relationship between
two records is a pretty standard way to relate two records in _any_ kind
of information system. It has
University San Diego, CA
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:19 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Preferred access points
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
See, I don't think the techniques we're talking about here are really
specific to rdbms or entity-relational databases.
..
This is a pretty important fact of information systems that has direct
impact on how we record metadata. Those designing standards for
recording
While not reading all of the posts about expressions, it seems to me that at
least in the field of music, there could be some special circumstances.
For instance, The Nutracker is a ballet; it is intended to be a visual and
aural experience. But in many cases, all we have on CDs is the music.
Gene has touched on a salient issue here. Musical resources arguably
exhibit the most warrant for recording Expression-level attributes (or,
potentially, creating separate Expression records). While the examples
he cites do not currently correspond to codified components of access
points, there
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Gene Fieg wrote:
While not reading all of the posts about expressions, it seems to me that at
least in the field of music, there could be some special circumstances.
For instance, The Nutracker is a ballet; it is intended to be a visual and
aural experience. But in many
Hal,
I'm not sure that I understand what your concern is. In terms of current
authority practice, we would first decide on the name for the work. Then
if what we have is a particular expression of that work that needs to be
identified, we use what we've done for the work and add to it in some
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
5.1.3
The term preferred title refers to the title or form of title chosen as
the basis for the preferred access point representing a work. ...
5.1.4
The term preferred access point refers to the standardized access point
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
In this regard, the preferred access point is of course a misnomer.
The important function here is not the access aspect, but the naming
aspect. An entity needs a name! For wherever an entity is mentioned,
cited, listed, referred to or related to, the question is
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I think we're in agreement, but the main point I want to make is not to
confuse An entity needs a name! (with which I agree) with An entity
needs a [single] name!' Today, this is no longer necessary and all of
the variant names can be found, and displayed, in all kinds of
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Although it can still be a big help. How does, for instance, Google
Booksearch do its job of bringing together what belongs together? It
has got nothing but textual strings to go by. Therefore, it will miss
many references out there that use idiosyncratic forms of
] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: 19 January 2009 14:01
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Preferred access points for Expressions
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I think we're in agreement, but the main point I want to make is not
to confuse An entity needs a name! (with which I agree
Did you actually find references to first expression in RDA? If so,
could you point that out. I looked for such a statement but didn't find
it.It always appeared to me that all expressions are treated equally.
kc
Chris Todd wrote:
It's Friday afternoon here and we're grappling with the RDA
Karen Coyle wrote:
Did you actually find references to first expression in RDA? If so,
could you point that out. I looked for such a statement but didn't find
it.
The database indeed reveals easily that there is no occurrence of the
phrase first expression.
It always appeared to me that all
@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Preferred access points for Expressions
I'm glad you said that because I'm really struggling with the purpose
of access points. What is the reason for them in the context of RDA
Owen
On 16 Jan 2009, at 15:54, Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu wrote:
My understanding of the last sentence of 6.27.1.1 is that the instructions
given under 6.27.3 are applied only for new expressions of an existing work
(not for the first expression), i.e. the instructions relate to distinguishing
these new expressions from the first one.
Ed Jones
National
25 matches
Mail list logo
