Re: [RDA-L] NLM policy on undifferentiated personal names
Dear Diane I would be interested in comparing notes with you on access points that you come across, which can not be differentiated using RDA. While remaining optimistic, we have certainly found cases within existing undifferentiated records that will be problematic, and are considering some targetted change proposals to RDA, as a result. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E] Sent: 08 May 2012 21:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] NLM policy on undifferentiated personal names NLM has decided to follow the British Library's lead and try to avoid creating any further undifferentiated NARs for NACO, nor to add any further identities to existing NARs. If using RDA qualifiers such as period of activity or profession will allow the name to be differentiated, then these elements will be added to the heading and headings will be coded RDA. Catalogers who are not yet trained in RDA will work with or pass the work onto NLM catalogers who participated in the RDA test. While NLM is not as optimistic as the BL that undifferentiated records can be avoided completely, NLM believes that minimizing the number of undifferentiated headings in the national authority file will be a benefit to the cataloging community. Diane Boehr Head of Cataloging National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, MS3823 Bethesda, MD 20894 301-435-7059 (voice) 301-402-1211 (fax) boe...@mail.nlm.nih.gov ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Adam Except that LCSH occupation/profession headings are in the plural, while RDA terms would be in the singular. I'm not at all sure that you could singularize an LCSH heading and still code the subfield $2 of the 374 field for LCSH. What do others think about this? I think that if we are to use LCSH terms for occupations in 374, we should use them as they appear in LCSH: that is, in the plural. It's the only approach that makes sense to me if we are thinking in terms of linked data. This is the advice I've given to our group of cataloguers who are creating RDA authorities: LCSH terms for classes of persons are given in the plural. Use LCSH terms concisely and only include subdivisions when necessary. Subdivisions should be indicated with a double dash. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
13.05.2012 19:49, Karen Coyle: After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. You've done a very concise and elucidating description of the calamity, and there certainly needs to be discussion about it. It raises two questions, although you may not be in a position to answer the second: 1. Would you advocate a restructuring of RDA to the effect that it conforms with the relational model, or seamlessly lend itself to implementations under that concept? Or i.o.w., that RDA come with a relational table database design ready for implementation? (For otherwise, as practice has shown, different and incompatible designs will evolve.) 2. Is there credible progress by now in the efforts to create a successor to MARC? (After all, LC had made that e condition for implementation, and they did meanwhile decide for it to take place in 2013. Or are they taking the good intention for the deed?) And if yes, what kind of approach will it be? Relational tables? If your answer to question 1 is YES, wouldn't that amount to favoring the relational technology over others, potentially or probably more suitable ones? For there's that NoSQL movement gaining momentum right now. But even disregarding that, AACR was, I think, always taking pains to avoid getting involved with the fads and fashions of data structures, even MARC itself was never mentioned. Now, RDA test data have been published in nothing but MARC, only marginally embellished, thereby foregoing the opportunity to unfold much of its potential. Sticking as it does to a low-level scenario 3. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 13/05/2012 19:49, Karen Coyle wrote: snip All, After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. I have intended to write something much more in depth on this topic but as that has been in progress now for a considerable time, I felt that a short, albeit incomplete, explanation was needed. I welcome all discussion on this topic. /snip This is really good. I question whether libraries primarily need a new relational database model for our catalogs, especially one based on FRBR. I still have never seen a practical advantage over what can be done now. The power of the Lucene-type full-text engines and the searches they allow and their speed are simply stunning, and nothing can compare to them right now. There are versions such as the Zebra indexing system in Koha, which was created for bibliographic records and very similar to Lucene. http://www.indexdata.com/zebra and the guide http://www.indexdata.com/zebra/doc/zebra.pdf. A relational database would be far too slow if used in conjunction with a huge database such as Google. So, some catalogs use the DBMS only for record maintenance, then everything is indexed in Lucene for searching, while the displays are made from the XML versions of the records. The DBMS is there only for storage and maintenance. This is how Koha works and could be more or less how Worldcat works as well, but these are not the only catalogs that work like this. Still, I will say that much of this lies beyond the responsibility of cataloging per se, and goes into that of systems. But on the other hand, your point that library headings are not relational and are actually based on browsing textual strings really is a responsibility of cataloging. It is also absolutely true and should be a matter of general debate. The text strings haven't worked in years because what worked rather clearly in a card catalog did not work online. I've written about this before, but there was a discussion on Autocat not too long ago. Here is one of my posts where I discussed the issue and offered an alternative to the current display of the headings found under Edgar Allen Poe: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/04/re-acat-death-of-dictionary-catalog-was.html I still maintain that we do not really know what the public wants yet. Everything is in a state of change right now, so it will take a lot of research, along with trial and error, to find out. I do think that people would want the traditional power of the catalog, but they will not use left-anchored text strings. The way it works now is far too clunky and new methods for the web must be found. Paths such as you point out would lead to genuine change and possible improvements in how our catalogs function for the public, which is the major road we need to take. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
The authorized access point part of RDA is one of the carryovers from AACR2, which we hope eventually will become unnecessary in a Scenario 1 environment, other than as a default display form. There are several areas of RDA that had to be carried over from AACR2 simply because discussions with the relevant communities had not been completed (e.g., with the Music community, law, religion, etc. - and those discussions are underway). We also will be renewing conversations with the publishing community to revisit the RDA/ONIX framework. RDA will continue to evolve and improve with the help of our international collaborations. - Barbara Tillett, Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA -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: Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF All, After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. I have intended to write something much more in depth on this topic but as that has been in progress now for a considerable time, I felt that a short, albeit incomplete, explanation was needed. I welcome all discussion on this topic. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: May 14, 2012 5:29 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF Now, RDA test data have been published in nothing but MARC, only marginally embellished, thereby foregoing the opportunity to unfold much of its potential. Sticking as it does to a low-level scenario 3. Scenario 2 is MARC, which relies upon authorized access points for machine linking and is what most people will be using for RDA in the short term, and will be testing on. Scenario 3 is card catalogs, which relies upon filing rules. Scenario 1 relies upon entities just linking to entities, not necessarily relying on mechanisms such as volatile and difficult-to-manage authorized access points. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Three possible scenarios are described in Tom Delsey's paper RDA Database Implementation Scenarios available on the JSC web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf). Judy Kuhagen, Secretary Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tillett, Barbara Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 6:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF The authorized access point part of RDA is one of the carryovers from AACR2, which we hope eventually will become unnecessary in a Scenario 1 environment, other than as a default display form. There are several areas of RDA that had to be carried over from AACR2 simply because discussions with the relevant communities had not been completed (e.g., with the Music community, law, religion, etc. - and those discussions are underway). We also will be renewing conversations with the publishing community to revisit the RDA/ONIX framework. RDA will continue to evolve and improve with the help of our international collaborations. - Barbara Tillett, Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA -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: Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF All, After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. I have intended to write something much more in depth on this topic but as that has been in progress now for a considerable time, I felt that a short, albeit incomplete, explanation was needed. I welcome all discussion on this topic. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 5/14/12 2:29 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: It raises two questions, although you may not be in a position to answer the second: 1. Would you advocate a restructuring of RDA to the effect that it conforms with the relational model, or seamlessly lend itself to implementations under that concept? Or i.o.w., that RDA come with a relational table database design ready for implementation? (For otherwise, as practice has shown, different and incompatible designs will evolve.) No, I'm saying that JSC made a claim that RDA was developed on RDBMS principles, and that scenario 1 is a mock-up of an RDBMS model of RDA, albeit not in the level of detail that would actually be needed in a database. I would like to see that principle or goal tested, preferably using real data. Alternatively, someone could do an analysis of RDA in RDF, again using data. I am uneasy that we have come this far without such testing, and we know that putting RDA data in MARC is no test of these possibilities. It is possible to do a schematic mock-up of data without having a full record format. You can draw boxes and say: this goes here, and links to this over here... and database administrators do that all the time. Or you can put some actual data into a test database. Then you see if you can retrieve what you want to retrieve and display what you want to display. What happened with the MARC format is that when we moved it into actual databases it turned out that certain things that people expected or wanted didn't really work well. For example, many librarians expected that you could replicate a card catalog display with records displaying in order by the heading that was searched. That is really hard to do (and not possible to do efficiently) using DBMS functionality, which is based on retrieved sets not linear ordering, and especially using keyword searching. I'm asking: are there expectations for catalogs using RDA that will be problematic? As an example, I know that some people who have played around with FRBR-structured data have found that there are efficiency issues is formatting displays. I need to sit down and draw some diagrams, but I'm wondering about retrieval using the FRBR WEMI structure: How do you determine where to stop following links when you've retrieved on, say, a keyword in an expression record? Does it work for all cases? If not, how do you decide (algorithmically) which case you have? Maybe I just worry too much but my past experience is that there are often huge gotchas when you move from thinking about data to actually doing something with the data. 2. Is there credible progress by now in the efforts to create a successor to MARC? (After all, LC had made that e condition for implementation, and they did meanwhile decide for it to take place in 2013. Or are they taking the good intention for the deed?) And if yes, what kind of approach will it be? Relational tables? I have no idea. If your answer to question 1 is YES, wouldn't that amount to favoring the relational technology over others, potentially or probably more suitable ones? For there's that NoSQL movement gaining momentum right now. But even disregarding that, AACR was, I think, always taking pains to avoid getting involved with the fads and fashions of data structures, even MARC itself was never mentioned. Now, RDA test data have been published in nothing but MARC, only marginally embellished, thereby foregoing the opportunity to unfold much of its potential. Sticking as it does to a low-level scenario 3. I don't think that you can really design structureless data, that is data that is designed with no technology in mind. I think you can design data that is as flexible as possible, but I don't see how you can design data if you don't have some idea how you want to use it, and using it means that it has to be realized in some form. Even RDA, which wanted to be format neutral came up with scenario 1, which is a definite structure. FRBR is a structure, and FRBR is inherent in RDA. So complete format neutrality IMO is not possible, but oftentimes there is more than one actual implementation format that data can fit comfortably into. At this point, seeing a concrete example of any one format would be better than none, at least in terms of easing my mind. kc B.Eversberg -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 5/14/2012 10:45 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: No, I'm saying that JSC made a claim that RDA was developed on RDBMS principles Where do you find this claim? I've seen documentation that FRBR (and by extension RDA) was developed based on entity-relational modelling. That's not the same thing as 'rdbms principles'. Entity-relational modelling is compatible with, and indeed even the foundation of, RDF too. Jonathan
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On 5/14/12 3:43 AM, Tillett, Barbara wrote: The authorized access point part of RDA is one of the carryovers from AACR2, which we hope eventually will become unnecessary in a Scenario 1 environment, other than as a default display form. Barbara, can you say more about this? Do you have examples? (Or could you make some up?) What type of retrieval would be made on RDA records compared to how we retrieve on records today? Has anyone mocked up data displays? (that aren't in MARC) It might be that I just haven't found the right site or documentation that answers my questions. kc There are several areas of RDA that had to be carried over from AACR2 simply because discussions with the relevant communities had not been completed (e.g., with the Music community, law, religion, etc. - and those discussions are underway). We also will be renewing conversations with the publishing community to revisit the RDA/ONIX framework. RDA will continue to evolve and improve with the help of our international collaborations. - Barbara Tillett, Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA -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: Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF All, After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some of my thinking on the topic: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/05/rda-dbms-rdf.html The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further from being suitable for RDF. I use headings (access points in RDA, I believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA that belie its intention to support scenario one. I have intended to write something much more in depth on this topic but as that has been in progress now for a considerable time, I felt that a short, albeit incomplete, explanation was needed. I welcome all discussion on this topic. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Karen said:
For example, many librarians expected that you could replicate a
card catalog display with records displaying in order by the heading
that was searched. That is really hard to do...
If I understnad what you mean, we had no difficulty doing this. One
example:
http://www.canadianelectroniclibrary.ca/cel-arc.html
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Mac, I'd love to see your file design. I did find an example of a record
that appears more than once in a single list, and I am wondering if you
had to replicate the record in the database to accomplish that, or if
you have another way to retrieve a record more than once on a single
keyword retrieval.
kc
On 5/14/12 8:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen said:
For example, many librarians expectedthat you could replicate a
card catalog display with records displayingin order by the heading
that was searched. That is really hard to do...
If I understnad what you mean, we had no difficulty doing this. One
example:
http://www.canadianelectroniclibrary.ca/cel-arc.html
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
[RDA-L] Part 1: Order of records Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
[I will split my response in to several parts]. On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: What happened with the MARC format is that when we moved it into actual databases it turned out that certain things that people expected or wanted didn't really work well. For example, many librarians expected that you could [a] *replicate a card catalog display* with [b] *records* *displaying in order by the* *heading that was searched*. That is really hard to do ([c] *and not possible to do efficiently*) using [d] *DBMS*functionality, which is based on [e] *retrieved sets* not *linear ordering*, and [f] *especially using keyword searching*. [emphasis and labels added] These are somewhat strong claims, which may require some weakening before they are entirely valid. If [a] and [b] are both true, it must necessarily be true that in card catalogs records were displayed in order by the heading that was searched. In a strong reading could imply that when searching a physical card catalog by a heading of a specific kind (e.g. subject) , there would be no card found that would would not be in alphabetical order for that subject. But if the catalog was interfiled, an entry on a different field might interrupt the ordering for the specific field that were searched for, a contradiction. Thus, a weaker reading, that allows for interruptions of other records that are not in order of the searched for field must be intended.
Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Karen asked:
Mac, I'd love to see your file design. I did find an example of a record
that appears more than once in a single list, and I am wondering if you
had to replicate the record in the database to accomplish that, or if
you have another way to retrieve a record more than once on a single
keyword retrieval.
I'm copying your question to the designer matt@elrod who should be able
to answer your question.
http://www.canadianelectroniclibrary.ca/cel-arc.html
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
[RDA-L] Part 2: Efficiency of DBMS operations Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: What happened with the MARC format is that when we moved it into actual databases it turned out that certain things that people expected or wanted didn't really work well. For example, many librarians expected that you could *[a]* *replicate a card catalog display* with *[b]* *records* *displaying in order by the* *heading that was searched*. That is really hard to do (* [c]* *and not possible to do efficiently*) using* [d]* *DBMS*functionality, which is based on *[e]* *retrieved sets* not *linear ordering*, and* [f] **especially using keyword searching*. [emphasis and labels added] [These are somewhat strong claims, which may require some weakening before they are entirely valid. I will not unpack the term record here.] BLUF: Not all DBMS are Relational; it is possible to efficiently retrieve records in order from many different types of DBMS, including Relational databases. [c] and [d] make the claim that it is impossible to retrieve records efficiently in some desired order using DBMS functionality. This is justified by [e] which claims that the source of this necessary inefficiency is that DBMS functionality is based on retrieved sets not linear ordering. It is difficult to work out what the intended reading of [e] is. The use of the term sets in retrieved sets, if interpreted in a mathematical sense, which would indeed make the concept of ordering nonsensical, as the elements within sets are unordered. However, since the claim is made in support of claims about possible efficiency, and since this is an attribute of possible systems, this reading cannot be the intended one. All of the major types of DBMS implementations have some form of ordering, internally, and in the query language. It is trivially true that in SQL based databases, the order in which the results of queries are retrieved is unspecified if you do not specify the order in which you want results to be returned, but even if we restrict ourself to these kinds of databases, this is not sufficient to support the strong claim. However, even though what the order in which the results might be unspecified, results are returned in *some* order, one after another. [e] thus cannot provide support for [c] and [d]. The internal arrangement of database records on disk is generally in some kind of linear order- to a first approximation, the records are stored one after the other in some order. This internal order may be as simple as the order in which the records were added to the database, or it may be an order based on the content of one of the fields of the record. If not otherwise specified, the order in which records are returned is based on this internal order*. For example, the Relational DBMSs Oracle and PostgresSQL both allow for records to be clustered (ordered on disk) so as to make retrieval in that order extremely efficient. Object Oriented DBMSs are usually quite efficient at following links to related records, and many will optimize based on patterns of retrieval order. Some OODBMS-like systems in the NoSQL family are entirely memory resident, making disk access irrelevant. Hierarchical databases like IDMS can be very fast at following the chains around which they are organized. Since we can efficiently retrieve records, in some specified order, using some DBMS, we have a counter-example to [c]. The claim can be weakened to a claim of possible inefficiency, but that is not unexpected in an ILS context :-) Claim [f] may or may not be considered to hold; one can replicate the database record once for each keyword that occurs, which is roughly equivalent to KWIC, which of course, trades space efficiency for time. If records are not replicated, keyword access to an indexed field may require a separate disk access for every record that matches the keyword (when the match is not at the start of the string). Often read requests will be ordered so that disk head movement is minimised; where this happens this is faster than purely random access. If the entire database is memory resident, or if all relevant records are in cache, the overhead of disk access is irrelevant. In this case [f] does not hold. I hope this isn't too confusing, Simon * In some situations involving multiple tables, some systems may return records in a different order if no specific order is requested. This is due to decisions that the DBMS makes on the fastest way of answering the query. Since not asking for results to be returned in a specific order tells the system that you don't care about ordering, the system may choose to use different algorithms when running your query. This extra freedom to optimize is why the order of results is unspecified by default.
Re: [RDA-L] Part 1: Order of records Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: On 5/14/12 9:33 AM, Simon Spero wrote: [I will split my response in to several parts]. On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: What happened with the MARC format is that when we moved it into actual databases it turned out that certain things that people expected or wanted didn't really work well. For example, many librarians expected that you could [a] *replicate a card catalog display* with [b] *records* *displaying in order by the* *heading that was searched*. That is really hard to do ([c] *and not possible to do efficiently*) using [d] *DBMS*functionality, which is based on [e] *retrieved sets* not *linear ordering*, and [f] *especially using keyword searching*. [emphasis and labels added] These are somewhat strong claims, which may require some weakening before they are entirely valid. If [a] and [b] are both true, it must necessarily be true that in card catalogs records were displayed in order by the heading that was searched. there was no 'record' in the card catalog, nor a search in the sense that I mean. The search in b is a database search. In the card catalog you had cards, and you had alphabetical order. There really wasn't anything resembling a database search, which is an action against an index that results in a retrieved set of something stored in a database (which could be bib records or it could be headings, if you store and index those separately). The start anywhere and go backwards and forwards through the alphabet on strings at the top of cards that are left-anchored, and see the heading and the other information on the card is not something you get in most library catalogs. Mac's catalog is an interesting mix -- it's a search, not a heading browse, and each heading appears on a line with its record, even if more than one heading is retrieved with the search. In a strong reading could imply that when searching a physical card catalog by a heading of a specific kind (e.g. subject) , there would be no card found that would would not be in alphabetical order for that subject. But if the catalog was interfiled, an entry on a different field might interrupt the ordering for the specific field that were searched for, a contradiction. I don't get this at all. Maybe an example would help? The card is the record. A card catalog is searched by finding the drawer[s] marked as holding entries beginning with the correct initial letters; finding the first match within a drawer (using any algorithm for search in a sorted random access file). For subject access, the correct search string may require the use of an ancillary large red books. Suppose that the card catalog is searched by subject where multiple inverted headings are relevant, and that there is an author whose last name files after the first subject, but before the inverted subjects, and that the catalog has records by author and by subject filed together in the same dictionary catalog. Values for the records for the author may appear in the subject area of the card that are not in alphabetical order by subject. Simon
Re: [RDA-L] Part 1: Order of records Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
I think the question is referring back to filing rules of the card catalog. I'm not certain how closely they met the conditions of the strong reading because I'm not entirely certain of the original query myself. From the 1956 LC filing rules, p. 140 has the following statements regarding the interaction of subject entries with other entries: I. The proper order of entries when the names of a person, place and thing are identical is: A. Person; B. Place; C. Subject [other than a specific subject that is arranged after its own author and added entries]; D. Title. Example: Stone, Samuel [author] Stone, Thomas [author] Stone, Pa. [name of place] STONE [name of an object] Stone[a title beginning with the word] II. Any author entry may have its own subject entry. When this is the case, the subject entry follows directly after its own author and added entries. [Clarifying text elided] Example (some entries elided): Stone, Thomas [author] Stone, Thomas [added entry] STONE, THOMAS [subject] Stone, Pa. [place as author] Stone, Pa. [place as added entry] Stone, Pa. Dept. of Ed. [subordinate body as author] Stone, Pa. Dept. of Ed. [subordinate body as added entry] STONE, PA. DEPT. OF ED. [subordinate body as subject] STONE, PA. [place as subject] STONE, PA. - BIOG.[place with subdivision as subject] III. [A sequence dealing strictly with subjects and their various subdivisions, qualifications, and inverted formulations - clustering by group but not yielding a strict alphabetic sequence: ART - HISTORY precedes ART - 17th CENTURY precedes ART - ALBANIA.] John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edumailto:mye...@union.edu Karen Coyle wrote: I don't get this at all. Maybe an example would help? Quoting Simon Spero: [snip] In a strong reading could imply that when searching a physical card catalog by a heading of a specific kind (e.g. subject) , there would be no card found that would would not be in alphabetical order for that subject. But if the catalog was interfiled, an entry on a different field might interrupt the ordering for the specific field that were searched for, a contradiction.
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Greta, Thanks for your reply. Perhaps the definition of computer should be changed to media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer or other computerized device. Is this something OLAC/CC:DA should take up? What is clear is that it's an electronic file of some kind that is being used. That to me seems to imply computer but as you correctly note, audio CDs and video DVDs are also basically electronic files too. Using other is clearly unsatisfactory. I think if more terms for media type and/or carrier type are needed that we need to get them into RDA. Sooner rather than later! As for your question: Are there other ways of getting a file onto a Kindle than downloading it from online?, I believe the answer is yes. It is my understanding (I have a Kindle, but haven't done this) that you can transfer files (e.g. PDFs and music files) from your computer onto your Kindle using the USB cable connecting the two devices. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 14 May 2012, Greta de Groat wrote: Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
I would catalog a Kindle as an object (LDR/06=r), just like a circulating laptop with software titles loaded. It's the equipment that is being cataloged, and it's not being treated as the media for the content. Content Type: three-dimensional form Media Type: unmediated Carrier Type: object With Extent being something like: 1 Kindle e-book reader (maybe with the number of titles, as in 1 Kindle e-book reader (25 data files)). The relationship of the device to the loaded titles is an interesting one. In the records we have we just add 505 contents notes and/or analytical added entries. But it would make sense to use the RDA relationship designators to recognize a specific relationship. I think an Item level relationship makes sense, as a specific copy of a file is being loaded onto a device (the contains (item) designator is closest to this idea). This is similar to the idea of items being bound or integrated after the fact of the original release of the main resource, or even of a digital transfer from one format to another. Perhaps there needs to be a new designator -- installed on and its reciprocal has installed. In addition, the information about the individual loaded titles as items needs to be linked to the works and expressions involved, as users may want to use the catalog to find all instances of a work, even if it's bundled with other works on an e-book reader. The conventions in MARC are a little spotty (added entries could work, but in RDA item level relationships can't use authorized access points). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: May-14-12 2:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Adam, I do not have a Kindle but I have some experience with the Nook and iPad. You can transfer files (pdfs, mp3, and I assume mp4 files) from your computer to your device using the USB. You can also use dropbox with the iPad to move files, although a full length film may be too big. I have purchased titles from O'Reilly and added them to iBooks. It is not clear what media storage devices other than computers will be part of the library holdings. Mary Mary S. Woodley. Ph.D. Collection Development Coordinator CSU Northridge 818-677-6302 (voice) 818-677-4928 (FAX) mary.wood...@csun.edu (email) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:20 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books Greta, Thanks for your reply. Perhaps the definition of computer should be changed to media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer or other computerized device. Is this something OLAC/CC:DA should take up? What is clear is that it's an electronic file of some kind that is being used. That to me seems to imply computer but as you correctly note, audio CDs and video DVDs are also basically electronic files too. Using other is clearly unsatisfactory. I think if more terms for media type and/or carrier type are needed that we need to get them into RDA. Sooner rather than later! As for your question: Are there other ways of getting a file onto a Kindle than downloading it from online?, I believe the answer is yes. It is my understanding (I have a Kindle, but haven't done this) that you can transfer files (e.g. PDFs and music files) from your computer onto your Kindle using the USB cable connecting the two devices. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 14 May 2012, Greta de Groat wrote: Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from
Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of
e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields?
We intend to use:
336 $atext$2rdaontent
337 $aelectronic$2isbdmedia
338 $aequipment$2mricarrier
Our clients do not consider a Kindle or Kobo to be a computer, nor
titles on them to be online.
RDA is out of touch with the types of resources we catalogue, and the
way in which they are used.
One must go outside RDA terminology to be exact and truthful to
patrons. Other for a major portion of what we catalogue does not
cut it.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Mac, I did a search on the subject term France and on the 3d page of
hits (sorted by title) there were two titles that seemed to be for the
same item. Instead, they do turn out to be two records because there are
two volumes.
Here's the case that I'm trying to get to -- let's say you have a record
with 3 subject headings:
Working class -- France
Working class -- Dwellings -- France
Housing -- France
In a card catalog, these would result in 3 separate cards and therefore
should you look all through the subject card catalog you would see the
book in question 3 times.
In a keyword search limited to subject headings, most systems would
retrieve this record once and display it once. That has to do with how
the DBMS resolves from indexes to records. So even though a keyword may
appear more than once in a record, the record is only retrieved once.
In your catalog, which displays the subject headings on a line with the
author and title
1) will each of these subject headings appear in the display?
2) does that mean that the bibliographic record (represented by the
author and title) will display 3 times in the list of retrievals?
kc
On 5/14/12 3:02 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen,
Because ebrary (through whom CEL and some other clients distribute
MARC records) can only accommodate one 856$u per record, those clients
must have a monograph record for each volume of a multivolume set, and
each issue of a serial (e.g., yearbooks) having its own PDF URL.
I suspect that is why you saw what appeared to be the same record more
than once. When an individual volume has a distinctive title, that
title goes in 245$a, and the set or serial title in 490/8XX. But if
not, we must use 245$n, with the set or serial title in 245$a.
As I keep saying over and over and over, our problems arise from
systems limitations, not ISBD/AACR2/MARC21 limitations. The building
should have received out attention before the building blocks.
If what you saw was because of a 245 and a 246 being very similar, or
for some other reason, please cite an example and Matt can tell you
how his OPAC handles that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Forwarded message
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:26:19 -0700
From: Matt Elrodm...@elrod.ca
To: J. McRee Elrodm...@slc.bc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Mac,
I would need to know which title seems to appear twice in a hit list to
answer this question. Distinct records might *appear* to be duplicates
for multi-volume sets for example. Recall that SLC sometimes creates
redundant monograph records to handle sets and serials.
Matt
On 14/05/2012 9:58 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen asked:
Mac, I'd love to see your file design. I did find an example of a record
that appears more than once in a single list, and I am wondering if you
had to replicate the record in the database to accomplish that, or if
you have another way to retrieve a record more than once on a single
keyword retrieval.
I'm copying your question to the designermatt@elrod who should be able
to answer your question.
http://www.canadianelectroniclibrary.ca/cel-arc.html
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Just a little clarification--we catalog the contents of the kindles, rather than cataloging the Kindle itself as a piece of equipment, so we do do it as text with essentially the Kindle as the carrier. However, we did do the iPad as a piece of equipment. greta On 5/14/2012 2:47 PM, Greta de Groat wrote: Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Part 2: Efficiency of DBMS operations Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
Note to the majority of readers on RDA-L: you should feel no guilt in skipping the rest of this thread. It has veered off into a technical discussion that you may simply have no time (or use) for - kc On 5/14/12 12:50 PM, Simon Spero wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net mailto:li...@kcoyle.net wrote: What happened with the MARC format is that when we moved it into actual databases it turned out that certain things that people expected or wanted didn't really work well. For example, many librarians expected that you could *[a]* /replicate a card catalog display/ with *[b]* /records/ /displaying in order by the/ /heading that was searched/. That is really hard to do (*[c]* /and not possible to do efficiently/) using*[d]* /DBMS/ functionality, which is based on *[e]* /retrieved sets/ not /linear ordering/, and*[f] */especially using keyword searching/. [emphasis and labels added] BLUF: Not all DBMS are Relational; it is possible to efficiently retrieve records in order from many different types of DBMS, including Relational databases. [c] and [d] make the claim that it is impossible to retrieve records efficiently in some desired order using DBMS functionality. This is justified by [e] which claims that the source of this necessary inefficiency is that DBMS functionality is based on retrieved sets not linear ordering. No, that is not what I meant. Of course you can retrieve records in a given order, and we do all the time. It's about using the headings in the MARC records to establish that order. So here's the question I put to Mac: *** let's say you have a record with 3 subject headings: Working class -- France Working class -- Dwellings -- France Housing -- France In a card catalog, these would result in 3 separate cards and therefore should you look all through the subject card catalog you would see the book in question 3 times. In a keyword search limited to subject headings, most systems would retrieve this record once and display it once. That has to do with how the DBMS resolves from indexes to records. So even though a keyword may appear more than once in a record, the record is only retrieved once. In your catalog, which displays the subject headings on a line with the author and title 1) will each of these subject headings appear in the display? 2) does that mean that the bibliographic record (represented by the author and title) will display 3 times in the list of retrievals? *** I could add to that: if the record had four subject headings: Working class -- France Working class -- Dwellings -- France Housing -- France Housing -- Europe Then under what circumstances in your system design would the user see all four subject entries (heading plus bib data) in a single display? That's part of the question. The card catalog had a separate physical entry for each entry point or heading associated with the bibliographic description. Do we have a reasonably efficient way to imitate this behavior using keyword (or keyword in heading, or left-anchored string searching) in an online library catalog? (followed by: is there any reason to do that?) But I think another part is the difference between retrieval, in the database sense of the term (give me all of the records with the word *france* in a subject heading) vs. the kind of alphabetical linear access that the card catalog provided, which allows you to begin at: France -- United States -- Commerce and soon arrive at Frances E. Willard Union (Yakima, Wash.) I don't think you can get from one to the other in most online catalogs because the set of records that you can see is determined by the search that retrieves only those records with *france* in it. I've designed a browse in DBMSs using a left-anchored search that retrieves one heading (the first one hit) in a heading index followed by a long series of get next commands. Naturally, next has to also be next in alphabetical order, so the index you are traversing has to be in alphabetical order. I should say: alphabetical order that is retained even as records are added, modified or deleted. I think this may be more feasible in some DBMSs than others. However, what is obviously missing here is a display of the bib record that goes with the heading (all of that ISBD stuff). It's possible that DBMS's can do this fine today, but in my olden days when I suggested to the DBA that we'd need to get next, display that heading, then retrieve and display the bibliographic record that went with it, 20 times in order to create a page of display, I practically had to revive the DBA with a bucket of cold water. Mac's system also cannot take the display from France--US--etc to Frances E. Willard because the headings it has to work with have been retrieved on a keyword search, thus only headings with the term *france* in them are displayed. It also does
