Quoting Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Richard Wallis  
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> *A record is a silo within a silo*
>>
> * *
>
>> A record within a catalogue duplicates the
>> publisher/author/subject/etc.information stored in adjacent records
>> describing items by the same
>> author/publisher/etc.  This community spends much of it's effort on
>> the best ways to index and represent this duplication to make records
>> accessible.   Ideally an author, for instance, should be
>> described [preferably only once] and then related to all the items they
>> produced
>>
>
> I would argue that  this  analysis of the nature of what it is to be a
> record is incomplete, and that a more nuanced analysis sheds light on some
> of the theoretical and practical problems that came up during the BL Linked
> Data meeting.
>
> From a logical point of view, a bibliographic record can seen as a theory -
> that is to say a consistent set of statements.  There may be  records
> describing the same thing, but the theories they represent need not be
> consistent with the statements in the first collection.  The record is the
> context in which these statements are made.

I think there is a big difference between the "database view" (store  
each unique thing only once and re-use it), the creation view, and  
what you do with data in applications.  "Records" may be temporary  
constructs responding to a particular application need or user query.  
In terms of library data, a cataloger will appear to be creating a  
complete description (however that is defined); that description will  
look logically like a record, and it will need to look like that so  
that the cataloger can decide when it is complete. In response to  
queries, the ability to produce different records from the same data  
has some interesting possibilities because it allows for different  
"views" to be created based on the nature of the query. A geographic  
view would show resources on a map; an author view would show  
resources related to people; a topical view could be a topic map. At  
the individual resource level, what is included in the resource  
display ("record") could be different for each of those views.

kc

>
> An example of where the removal of  context leads to problems can be seen
> by considering the case of a Document to which FAST headings are assigned
> by two different catalogers, each of whom has a different opinion as to the
> primary subject of the Work.  Each  "facet" is a separate statement within
> the each theory; each theory may represent a coherent view of the subject,
> yet the direct combination of  the two theories may entail statements that
> neither indexer believes true.
>
> The are also performance benefits that arise from admitting records into
> one's ontology; a great deal of metalogical information, especially that
> for provenance, is necessarily identical for all statements made within the
> same theory;  all the statements share the same utterer, and the statements
> were made at the same time.  Instead of repeating this metalogical
> information for every single statement, provenance information can be
> maintained and reasoned over just once.
>
> Simon
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet