Re: VIAF contributor model

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
>
>
>> I would argue that treating the data in our 100/110/700/710/800/810
>> fields (I'm leaving 600/610 out of this, because there's plenty of
>> room for debate there) as some sort of bibliographic entity rather
>> than people or organizations gives us nothing and simply makes our
>> data hard for others to reuse.
>>
>
> I agree with you, Ross, and yet the FR's are going even further down the
> bibliographic entity path than I believe library data had in the past. By
> formalizing the bibliographic entity in the FR's it becomes harder to create
> library data that is compatible with other data. This worries me, but I
> don't know if the FR committees would be open to suggestions. It seems to me
> that the FR and RDA efforts have aimed to model *current* library practice
> in a new way, rather than accepting that modeling might point to new forms
> of library data that are more universally usable.
>
And I agree with this.  Of course, I also think it's way too early
assume FR* or RDA will actually ever get used.

-Ross.

Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 15:15:56 UTC