Re: Kill the Record! (Was: BIBFRAME and schema.org)

On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:
<snip>
>
> I guess I don't understand why offering epub, pdf, and html versions
> of the same resource doesn't constitute "items".
>
> If you look at an article in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org>, for
> example, where else in WEMI would you put the available file formats?
>
> Basically, format should be tied to the item, although for physical
> items, any manifestation's item will generally be the same format
> (although I don't see why a scan of a paperback would become a new
> endeavor, honestly).
>
> In the end, I don't see how digital is any different than print in
> this regard.
>
</snip>

Because manifestations are defined by their format (among other things).
Therefore, a movie of, e.g. Moby Dick that is a videocassette is
considered to be a different manifestation from that of a DVD. Each one
is described separately. So, if you have multiple copies of the same
format for the same content those are called copies. But if you have
different formats for the same content, those are different manifestations.

The examples in arxiv.org are just like I mentioned in archive.org and
they follow a different sort of structure. You do not see this in a
library catalog, where each format will get a different manifestation,
so that each format can be described.

As a result, things work quite differently. Look for e.g. Moby Dick in
Worldcat, and you will see all kinds of formats available in the
left-hand column.
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick

When you click on an individual record,
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367 you will see where all of the
copies of this particular format of this particular expression are
located. This is the manifestation. And its purpose is to organize all
of the *copies*, as is done here.

In the IA, we see something different:
http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft, where this display
brings together the different manifestations: pdf, text, etc. There is
no corresponding concept in FRBR for what we see in the Internet
Archive, or in arxiv.org.

I am not complaining or finding fault, but what I am saying is that the
primary reason this sort of thing works for digital materials is because
there are no real "duplicates". (There are other serious problems that I
won't mention here) In my opinion, introducing the Internet Archive-type
structure into a library-type catalog based on physical materials with
multitudes of copies would result in a completely incoherent hash.

This is why I am saying that FRBR does not translate well to digital
materials on the internet.

Getting rid of the concept of the "record" has been the supposed remedy,
but it seems to me that the final result (i.e. what the user will
experience) will still be the incoherent mash I mentioned above: where
innumerable items and multiple manifestations will be mashed together.
Perhaps somebody could come up with a way to make this coherent and
useful, but I have never seen anything like it and cannot imagine how it
could work.
-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html