Hal Cain wrote:
In RDA, what is the relationship between the FRBR term manifestation
and the term resource?
...
Further, how does each of those terms relate to what I think is a useful
term, document, ...
and why, in fact, was resource favored over document or
publication?
In German, we
Julie Moore wrote:
Has anyone developed an illustrative sample OPAC screen with records
cataloged under RDA?
Presently, none of the likes can exist - with RDA parts II and III
still in the making.
In the course of another project, however, not directly related to
RDA, we have almost
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
So considerable more standardization of publisher transcription would
result from the present draft of RDA, than from AACR2, with people
differing about whether the first of two names is a forename to be
transcribed as an initial, or a surname to be transcribed in full,
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The good news is that RDA elements will be mapped to MARC21 fields in
Appendix D. This will take much guess work out of creating a MARC
record. Think of all those questions on the Autocat and MARC e-lists
about where in the MARC record would I code
But this, more
On 6/1/06, Patzer, Karin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, indeed, due to our linking procedures, the 780 field in the record of
Southern voice will be changed automatically.
Example 3 in the way of ZDB (not complete)
ZDB 4000/MARC 245: Southern voice
ZDB 4025/MARC 362: Nachgewiesen 1991 -
ZDB
Hal Cain schrieb:
All this discussion brings back to my mind a point made elsewhere by
Martha Yee when the FRAR draft document was issued, almost a year ago:
FRAR (at least in that draft) and FRBR have nothing to say about how
*works* (or expressions, or manifestations) are to be NAMED; ...
Hal Cain schrieb:
With respect, surely an ID number (or other alphanumeric label) isn't
a name? I think of it (an ID) in a bibliographic system as a token:
the value of the token can be converted into a name written in terms
(linguistic and semantic) which match the system (or system
Mike Tribby schrieb:
In response to Hal Cain, Bernhard Eversberg schrieb:
Well, if working on an entirely new code is not the time of aspiring to
perfection, then when will that time ever come?
Aspiring to perfection? How about aspiring to practicality and utility?
What else would
Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
It mystifies me why there seems to be so much resistance to the idea
of providing direct links to either the related item or information
about the item without requiring the user to take extra steps to
look up the information about the related item (which is what we do
Martha Yee wrote:
Our profession exists because of the complexities that arise when
authors publish many works and when works exist in many expressions and
manifestations. If all authors published only one work and all works
existed in only one manifestation, Google would be the perfect tool
James Agenbroad wrote:
I think several years ago the late Professor Hans Wellisch of Univ.
of MD library school wrote an article proposing that we do away with
inverting personal names entirely.
What was his suggestion for cases where the first names are not
consistently used or known?
Roy Tennant asked:
... what are the essential aspects of
bibliographic description and what have we discovered through experience to
be optional except in the rarest of circumstances? Isn't this the kind of
discussion we should be having?
It depends on the goals or objectives you set for
Jonathan Rochkind schrieb:
To the extent that this allows coded values to be used instead of
text, it is just right, I think they are right that this decision is
a question of how data is stored and not what values are atually
chosen. I also think this principle is basically in line with what
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Perhaps we need more than one standard: an urber standard, the
standard for libraries (AACR3), as well as standards for other specific
communities, e.g., museums.
What is urber? Can't find it in dictionaries, so it might be
some sort of current neologism that everyone
Karen Coyle wrote:
It would be very interesting to hear what dreams catalogers have of a better
cataloger interface.
Indeed. But I'm quite sure it wouldn't look a whole lot different
(in the MARC bibliosphere) from the MARC they grew up on and that
evolved with their perceived needs - or
Antony Gordon wrote:
Why indeed not say edition instead of expression, and where
it is important to differentiate between textually identical
versions in different formats, just say versions. Might be
a tad easier to grasp. Less flashy, though, but that's something
most in the trade may be
Hengel-Dittrich, Christina wrote:
A user certainly may search for the representation of a person,
corporate body or even a concept in the Web, leading him to
all resources to which the person, corporate body or concept are
related.
To define only group 1 entities as resources would make a
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
... the general belief in the metadata
community is that it is preferable to use dumb identifiers to refer to
entities, rather than English language headings.
This belief becomes conviction when the language of your catalog is
not English and you are dreaming of
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
This seems like big news. I just checked out Google Book Search and saw
their refine results at the bottom of the page.
For the end-user with no access to the Big Red Books, what's now
missing is only a browsable finding list of LCSH terms from where to
launch a
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
I wonder if there is any chance that the BT, NT, and RT might be able to get
incorporated into this in the future (again, the WW II, WW 2, World War II,
World War 2 problem could get fixed this way)
No problem at all - if only someone can provide the data.
The
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Rather than redoing the standards for library resource description, we
should be developing standards for what might be done with the wealth
of bibliographic descriptions we already have. The fact that there
has been no standard since the unit card for how patrons should
Karen Coyle said:
As long as the data elements are understood, it seems to me that workness
is something that can be defined differently by different systems for
the very same set of data.
Yes, as soon as the physical, bound volume is no longer the unit
and the indivisible object of the
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
...
These displays are shamefully short on information. They have a
standard by statement, regardless of the relationship of the name to
the manifestation being described (when that information is right
there in the MARC record). They give no indication of pagination for
Weibel,Stu wrote:
To choose an idiom foreign to the Web for such encoding will assure the
irrelevance of library data on the open Web. Recasting MARC in XML is,
in my estimation, exactly such a choice. It masquerades as
Web-friendly, but the result is simply more-parseable confusion for any
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
I have to admit it's hard to see how ISBD punctuation could be
automatically generated ...
How would one program, for example, to insert :, =, ;, or ,
before 245$b? There would be no way to automatically distinguish
other title information, parallel title, second
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Some of that energy going into RDA could be devoted to upstream
harvesting, crosswalks, interoperability, classed subject retrieval,
and dealing with the redundancies and lacunae in MARC21.
At least during the near future, I suspect more would be gained
through this sort
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
This seems a very Anglo centric practice; I thought RDA was also
supposed to be more international? This change (like abandoning Latin
abbreviations) would be marching in the opposite direction toward
English language centralism.
Which we would have to see with little
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When we speak of keyword searching do we not also mean phrase
searching using quotation marks?
It seems like, meanwhile, everybody assumes something like this.
There can be no doubt from where this understanding originates.
But to the best of my knowledge, there's no
Karen Coyle wrote:
... I would like to understand the nature of
the access points in the bibliographic record.
The RDA draft says:
5.1.3.3 The term *preferred access point* refers to an access point
representing a work or expression that is constructed using the
preferred access
Karen Coyle hinted at
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/11/use-of-hierarchy-as-organizing.html
and wrote:
Hmm. I've been wishing we could do more with the relationships between
entries in our catalogs -- similar to faceting, but being able to
distinctly show:
translations
works citing on
Laurence Creider wrote:
The only way a uniform title can be a primary access point ...
In the current RDA drafts, there is no such thing as a primary access
point, only preferred access points. You find formulations like this:
To construct the Preferred access point for the work (6.1.1)
James Agenbroad wrote:
If those working on RDA seek another topic for their energy I suggest
that standardizing filing rules for OPACs would be appropriate. It would
simplify matters for both users (one set of fining rules to learn) and
vendors (one set of rules to implement).
It is
Philip Davis wrote:
In his presentation RDA : a new cataloging standard for a digital
future, John Attig pointed out that MARC is likely to be with us for
some time. Not every RDA element provided can at present be encoded in
the MARC format. An RDA/MARC working group has therefore been
Dan Matei wrote:
• The term resource is used in part I (and throughout RDA) to refer to
the entity that forms
the center of focus for a resource description.
That is, the genus is entity and the differentia is that forms the center of
focus for a resource
description. Too vague, IMHO.
Ed Jones wrote:
To me resource corresponds to Vorlage in RAK-WB, and focus of the
description may be as precise as we can be.
You are right because Vorlage means, literally, anything lying in
front of you, waiting to be described. The word has no definitive
connotations with printed matter or
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I think that access point
should be striken from our vocabularly. It does nothing useful for us,
as that circular definition shows.
That's right. The concept is still tied in with that notion of the card
heading which
Marjorie Bloss wrote:
The Co-Publishers of RDA Online (the American Library Association, the
Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and
Information Professionals) have reached the conclusion that further time
is required to complete the development of the new
of the
software (the software in which the final draft will be issued) will
have a print capability, allowing those who wish to print out the
content to do so.
But the production version will have a print function? Will it be
pay per view?
Thanks for the answers.
Bernhard Eversberg
James Weinheimer wrote:
So, it's quite ironic that libraries, who have always been about the open
flow of information, shoot themselves in the foot on exactly this point.
Indeed. That's why I actually brought the question up about the
availability and accessibility of the full version.
In
James Weinheimer wrote:
That's an important refinement when considering Cutter's questions and
rules. The questions he poses are the questions that people asked only
*after* they had aligned their intention with a bookish mindset and then
walk[ed] into a library--and then very probably after
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
This is really the point: relatively few people start their research with a
library catalog. In fact, I was surprised when OCLC discovered that an entire
1%-11% does today! If people are not using library catalogs to start with, it
logically follows that the #1 search
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
The FRBR user tasks are nothing new at all, and I maintain as always
that they are essentially timeless and universal.
They are, but only for the known-item search and its corollaries.
I understood Jim Weinheimer as implying that the known-item search
is - and
John F. Myers wrote:
... Cutter's objects served us well as information providers and
in my experience as information users. I somehow managed to navigate
the research needs of some 18 years of education with the support of an
information profession bolstered by 8 simple statements. Further,
Jim Weinheimer asked:
Why can't we say what RDA and FRBR are a solution to, and how their
introduction will make this huge difference to our users?
Why can't we? The answer should long since have been given.
The closest thing is probably the Strategic Plan:
Mike Tribby wrote:
a report from Educause that says that students think they already
know how to search,
... _we_ felt like that, too, when there were far fewer information resources
to search. This may just indicate a truism of youth,
Yes, but then there's also the more general
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
Why can't we say what RDA and FRBR are a solution to, and how their
introduction will make this huge difference to our users?
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
Karen Coyle wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Bernard, I feel like you're advocating an answer to a question that
hasn't been clarified.
In the
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I think the child/title authority record is needed rather than just using
the works information to allow for name/title headings in bib record
displays. It might be determined that the Works field in the parent record
should only have the control number of the child name
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
and (b) RDA is a step in vaguely the right direction.
I know of no person whose opinion I have come to trust, who agrees RDA
is a step in the right direction.
And besides, something as vast and complex as RDA cannot be called a step.
Apart from its poor writing
The complete full draft reveals how big and how long a step this new
code actually is. There may be any number of smaller points that can
be made against this or that rule or part or phrase, and the PDFs _are_
a pain in the neck and a colossal waste of time and paper, but then when
has an effort
A small demo example for what open development could do:
http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/db/wtr/content.htm
Using modest, no-frills tools and designs, this offers browsing by rule
number, rule title, core elements, and keyword (all words from all
rules). Appendices are not included.
If you want to
In our traditional metadata, be it coded in any flavor of MARC or other
formats, we lack something that is of paramount importance for Google's
success: a syndetic mechanism that would link bib records with other
bib records in a way that software can make use of. (Karen and others
have stated
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
These record linking MARC21 fields can express relationships among
bibliographic records:
760 Main series entry
762 Subseries entry
...
With a set of codes for 787$i, all possible relationships could be
expressed. Those you mention already have distinctive fields.
So
Gene Fieg wrote:
After reading RDA and its application of FRBR, it seems that we
dealing with librarianship’s application of Platonism, especially in
the descriptions of work, expression, manifestation, and item. There
really is no “work”; it is like a Platonic form, which is reflected in
From the TLC site, one can download their index to the LCRI texts
(before 1999!).
These were reformatted (the index data, not the texts), with some
imperfections due to HTML irregularities, to make database records for
the RDA index database. For what it's worth.
There's now three things:
1.
Flack, Irvin schrieb:
... For cataloguing purposes the
work doesn't exist until it's in a form that can be perceived by someone
else, even if he had the rest of the Requiem 'written' in his head.
There are more works, esp. from antiquity, of which only fragments have
survived. Some may yet be
Hal Cain wrote:
And there are others which haven't survived at all, at least not in
recognizable form ... In the meantime people
write about them, or produce editions of works created to express
opposition, and we have to formulate headings (citations, whatever) to
deal with them in providing
Casey Mullin wrote:
IMHO, the definition of Work in the FRBR/RDA context is purposefully
vague, ...
Even more so, I think, in AACR: It talks about works all the
time, yet there is no definition at all. Seems to have been good enough,
or did anyone complain? (A practical case of
Karen Coyle wrote:
This could mean that the only version remaining is the one that Bernard
copied over-- you did make a copy, didn't you? (I got that from a post
of yours). I can't begin to say how outrageous I think this is, so I'll
just shut up here.
My database is not in any way related to
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
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
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
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
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
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
J. McRee Elrod schrieb:
Thanks! I didn't find it with the index, having tried Asian,
Oriental, Chinese. etc. surname. Reading it, I can see why.
Surely I'm not the only person having problems finind exact rules when
written so generally?
That's not a big problem. I added asian surnames as
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Interesting, I'm curious for more details about what you do -- and
how it came to be -- that no cataloger in Germany actually deals
directly in MARC, while in the US catalogers seem to think there is
no way possible BUT dealing in MARC,
Clearly a case of a lack of
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
From this example, what I get is that while catalogers in Germany might not
be dealing with MARC21 directly, they are still dealing with the same
concept, i.e. data tagged with numeric labels in a specific data structure.
Yes, obviously.
It doesn't really look much
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
If the purpose of RDA is to make library catalogues easier to use for
patrons, as recently stated. it seems strange that library catalogues
are not its prime subject matter.
Matter of fact, the word as such doesn't even occur in the text, other
than in examples. Catalog
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
From what I could glean from the German report sent by Stephen, (and I
may be wrong), the justification for moving to AACR2/MARC2 was that by
accepting AACR2 the amount of copy cataloging records would go up
significantly, and by accepting MARC21 the internal
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of
information, *and* define what people want when they search information?
From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI.
It's the classical mental image for the structure of
John Attig wrote:
... In terms of
what I was describing, what the VIAF lacks is a general description of
the person at the center of the web of names; it seems to me if we were
creating such entity descriptions it would make the work of clustering
in resources such as the VIAF easier and
J. McRee Elrod schrieb:
As a German library, will you leave English inclusions in a record
for, say, a French language text?
Yes. Not sure about all agencies, but in our network (GBV, the largest)
this is what we do. Everything that is not an access point is considered
not relevant for
John Attig wrote:
In some of my presentations, I have suggested that we should
consider using both entity (registry) records -- to represent the
person -- and name authority records to represent one of the many
possible access points representing the name of the person. This
John Hostage wrote:
Can we expect the other countries to start implementation a year before
the U.S. national libraries, assuming that RDA passes the test?
For Germany, to this day there is no statement - or none that I knew of.
Prior to implementation, there would have to be a good
Anne Laguna schrieb:
I work for a regional public library service in Northern Australia, and
am probably out of the flow of things a bit, but: there has been a lot
of to-ing and fro-ing regarding the details of the RDA, and I am
interested to know what will happen to RDA if the LC decide 'they'
Marjorie Bloss wrote:
... The
expectation is that, assuming the U.S. testing is positive, BL, LAC, and
NLA will implement at about the same time in fall 2010. In the event
that LC decides not to implement at the conclusion of their test,
implementation options will be reviewed by the four
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Just what is the advantage of ignoring logical order of elements in
either rule construction or coding?
The question is, what exactly is logical here?
If ISBD were the organizing
backbone of RDA, it would be much more comprehensible.
For the human reader, yes. As
Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
No, it's offered as an alternative method.
Alternatives are a mixed blessing. They are meant to
make more users happy but they burden them with the
decision making.
As goes without saying, agencies need to specify which
alternatives to follow in what cases - or very
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The differences (and time savings) will I believe become more obvious
when we get beyond our current flat database structure into the true
relational database structure that RDA is really intended for. A
manifestation record for a new edition of, say, Shakespeare's Hamlet
Kevin M. Randall schrieb:
John, thanks a lot (NOT!) for explaining this. I was getting all ready to
push for making $n and $p obsolete. The thing is, apart from their
usefulness in identifying the ISBD elements, I can't think of any use for
them in our systems. If anything, they are an
Melodie Frances asked:
Can anyone explain WHY it's so hard to get info from MARC?
We need not expose MARC to anyone who doesn't want/like/understand it.
What we need are good services and tools that can access MARC but send
out flavors of DC in XML or whatever just as well as plain old ISBD.
For
Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
No Mac, the vocabularies don't assume anything of the kind. If you
check out some of the work we've done with the Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek (in the Content Type and Media Type vocabularies at:
http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/45.html and
Weinheimer Jim schrieb:
As Tim Berners-Lee said in that wonderful interview that we
discussed on one of these lists several months back, to
enter this new world, all you have to do is put your data
out in a format that is usable for others (e.g. not in
a pdf file) and let others know about
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
Yes, we need what is called an Exchange Format, ...
Look at WorldCat, they already offer exports (citations) in
formats suitable for ReferenceManager or EndNote:
TY - CONF
DB - /z-wcorg/
DP - http://worldcat.org
ID - 148699707
LA - English
T1 - The maritime world
Weinheimer Jim schrieb:
Who knows what some clever people in India or South Africa could do with our
records?
Well, I should have added that virtually all ILS's *do* already have
exports in human-readable form: What else are their OPAC title displays?
Mostly they are labeled these days, very
Weinheimer Jim schrieb:
This is a description of a very interesting meeting over metadata, with
many groups involved.
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-exposes-book-metadata-privates.html
Most edifying as well as sobering indeed.
Do we conclude that ONIX should replace MARC?
Browsing by title may not be that important today with keyword retrieval since
people should be able to sort in other ways. I believe that is the only place
for non-filing indicators (other than series titles), but I may be wrong?
They were only talking about books at that meeting, weren't
Weinheimer Jim schrieb:
... we can begin to consider exactly what catalogers can
provide our patrons that the Googles and the Yahoos cannot.
Broadly, it is probably the aspect of bringing together what
belongs together:
-- works by one author
-- versions of a work
-- parts of a multipart or
Schutt, Misha wrote:
The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by
multiple layers of derivativeness.
True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness
or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added
a uniform title and a little,
Karen Coyle wrote:
What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is
a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger.
Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view --
which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book)
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
This is correct but I think we can illustrate it more clearly
using subjects (where the function is exactly the same) ...
That's why, some time ago, I suggested to go about work links
the same way as with subject headings. I mean, for many important
works that are
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Isn't that the way we use MARC 7XX$a$t now, with the relationship in a
5XX note? Field 740 has 2nd indicator 2 to distinguish an analytic
from a related work, but not 700 or 710 $a$t.
More or less, yes.
The relationship
subfield you suggest would be something new.
J. McRee Elrod schrieb:
That you plan to translate RDA into English is good news indeed :-{)}.
May I suggest Michael Gorman as translator for the standard English
language version?
Certainly, from the hand of Michal Gorman, the text could gain
a lot in terms of accessibility, at least for
McGrath, Kelley C. wrote:
Karen,
... I find the idea of a recordless view intriguing and presumably much more
flexible.
Karen Coyle had said:
What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is
a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the
cataloger. Which
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in FRBR-speak)
expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a unique number for the
entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except strictly for librarians) and they are thinking of specific
John Attig schrieb:
If FRBR in fact models the item as associated with only one
manifestation, then this is an obvious oversimplification -- as many
have discovered when they learned that their systems have been designed
on this same premise and therefore are not capable of dealing with
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
In my experience, the one area of bibliographic control
that has the least amount of agreement is in the analytics:
each bibliographic agency has its own idea of precisely
what belongs to precisely what and how to describe it.
Exactly.
In my previous posting, I mixed
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Hal Cain
Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also
to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible
subfields.
I have suggested that at MARBI meetings and was met with looks of
horror. It seems like a perfectly reasonable
Karen Coyle wrote:
Absolutely, and thanks for the clear example. It looks like we will
have many expressions that each have only one manifestation, in part
thanks to the creativity of publishers who almost never turn out the
same exact publication twice. I share your concern about what this
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
