LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  March 2010

CODE4LIB March 2010

Subject:

Re: Variations/FRBR project relases FRBR XML Schemas

From:

Joe Hourcle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:35:11 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (77 lines)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> Karen Coyle wrote:
>> 
>> naturally favors the package over the contents. So we'll have some  works 
>> that are what users think of as works, and other works that  represent the 
>> publisher's package -- which sometimes will be something  that makes sense 
>> to the user, but at other times, as in many music  CDs, is bordering on the 
>> arbitrary. If we present these all as works  to the user, confusion will 
>> ensue.
>> 
> So it's up to our systems to NOT present things that way, right?  If a 
> particular Work is just an aggregate which is not that meaningful to the 
> user, it shouldn't be presented (at least in initial result sets), the 
> meaningful expressions/manifestations should be presented, right?  I'm not 
> entirely clear on your example demonstrating that, but I believe you that it 
> exists.

I would personally assume so -- you don't want someone searching to see if 
you have a copy of 'Hamlet', and all you have is 'The Collected Works of 
William Shakespeare' and so your system reports that you don't.

Of course, depending on what the user asks for affects what we respond 
back with -- even if we have 27 copies of 'Hamlet', we wouldn't respond 
with 27 records back in response to their request.  It's entirely possible 
(and probable) that systems track objects at a granularity other than 
what's presented back to the user.

If someone's searching for a specific song, so we expect them to know the 
names of every album it's been on?  Yes, our local catalog might only 
track the albums, but if there's some sort of indication that they're 
aggregations, we know that we might need to expand them to be able to 
answer the question.


> The way I see it, our architectural job is _first_ to create a data model 
> that allows all the neccesary things to be expressed, THEN create systems 
> that use those necessary expressed things to create reasonable displays.
>
> I'm still thinking my interpretation (which is not JUST mine, I don't think I 
> even invented it) of aggregate modelling is the only sane one I've seen that 
> allows us to model what in many use cases we'd be allowed to model, without 
> forcing us to model what in many use cases cost-benefit would not justify 
> modelling.

It's a *reference* *model* ... it is *not* an implementation.  Everyone's
allowed to model anything you want.


>> In the RDA relationships (which I've summarized here 
>> http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html) there seem to be two kinds: 
>> intellectual relationships, and bibliographic relationships. "Is  adapted 
>> from" is an intellectual relationship; "Contains" is a  bibliographic 
>> relationship. They're all mixed together as if they are  the same thing.
>
> I think you may very well be right that there some be more clarification in 
> the model here. I haven't thought about it enough.
>
> There definitely needs to be more clarification in the model as to how to 
> handle aggregates. At one point there was a working group on that, I'm not 
> sure what happened to it. Of course, if the working group came up with 
> something OTHER than my preferred interpretation, I'd be very unhappy. :)

The group's two proposals were to model aggregates as works, or as 
manifestatons, so RDA seems to be on their own modeling them as 
expressions:

 	http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates

I don't know what happened at the August 2009 meeting, though.  William 
Denton had a breakdown of the August 2008 meeting, which explained 
some of the issues that they were considering:

 	http://www.frbr.org/2008/08/18/working-group-on-aggregates


-Joe

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager