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:

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:06:03 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (72 lines)

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Karen Coyle wrote:

> One thing I am finding about FRBR (and want to think about more) is that one 
> seems to come up with different conclusions depending on whether one works 
> down from Work or works up from Item. The assumption that an aggregate in a 
> bound volume is an Expression seems to make sense if you are working up from 
> the Manifestation, but it makes less sense if you are working down from the 
> Work. If decisions change based on the direction, then I think we have a real 
> problem!

It's a *reference model*.  People are going to apply it differently, for 
what works in their situation.

It is pointless to assume that we will ever get everyone to agree on a 
single implementation -- it's either too complex and waste's people time 
for stuff they don't care about, or it's not complex enough and doesn't 
handle your special situations and strange edge cases.

Build the system that makese sense for your needs, and use FRBR as 
guidelines on issues to consider, basic requirements, etc.  It is not an 
API spec.  It is not an interchange format.

RDA, on the other hand, is more concrete -- it has specific cataloging 
instructions on how to deal with specific situations.  (and well, in the 
case of aggregates as new expressions without a resultant new work, as 
I've come to understand from this discussion, rules that might not comply 
with FRBR)  With the RDA toolkit, you even have a specific implementation.

...

Maybe my take on the situation is different because I don't deal with 
bibliographic objects.  Technically, by FRBR, I don't even deal with 
Items, as it's all digital.  (and I don't want to try to answer if little 
bits of magnetic film spread across my disk arrays make up an 'Item', as 
then I have to consider things being new Items when my disk array decides 
to move data around because a drive starts to fail)

... as such, there's no way in hell I'm going to be able to mesh my 
resultant catalogs with most other people's catalogs (and to do so, 
wouldn't make sense for the users).  I also have to try to mesh other 
catalogs with our federation, where we just don't have the funding to 
re-catalog every object, so I'm just trying to see how each catalog fits 
within a common model, so I know how to talk to each system and how the 
granularity of their results compares to the results from other systems.

I specifically have to plan for everyone coming up with their own systems; 
some are spectacularly bad.  (A new database table every year or month, so 
we don't hit limits within our database.  Multiple related tables, but not 
actually assigning foreign keys between them.  Over 10k tables, with each 
catalog table storing both current and deprecated data and no way to easy 
way to select just the deprecated data without going through an overly 
cumbersome abstraction interface (which merges in constants as stored in 
other yet other tables) ... and each of the catalog tables has no fixed 
specification.)

...

I'm with Jenn on this -- different groups can set set up their little 
idealized implementations of FRBR, as is being done with RDA, and the 
different groups working on their implementation can ignore them when it 
doesn't fit with their needs.

More concrete systems *are* needed, or we're going to end up with a 
near-infinate number of variations, but some people are going to find it 
easier to deal with a more restrictive model, where they don't have to 
deal with complexity; and others are going to have strange edge cases that 
don't fit within the restrictions that require that same complexity.

The final vote on if people accept the restrictions of RDA will be if they 
decide to adopt it, or if they have to go with some other implementation.

-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

February 2020
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