Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

Yes I think WorldCat has a similar issue. Another facet I would like to add
is that WorldCat (and I suppose others) has the issue that there multiple
MARC records describing the same entity (or set) in different languages of
cataloging. So there are a clusters of descriptions (chunks of metadata)
about an entity. I don't know if the cluster should be identified or not?
These clusters of same/similar attributes (that only differ by language they
were authored in) exist, in WorldCat and will exist when the dedup'ing
across catalogs (via LLD) takes place.

I think that OCLC has handled them differently over time:
1)  originally viewed them as the same and merged them into the master
aggregate record, only setting holdings (A bit lossy).
2) to keeping them separate, giving them their own OCLC number, referring to
them as the alternate language records. I believe there is now work being
done link them (I think external to the records themselves).

On 9/13/10 12:53 PM, "Karen Coyle" <> wrote:

> I have a dilemma which I think is fairly common. I have bibliographic
> data that does not follow the FRBR group 1 divisions (work,
> expression, manifestation, item). These are entries in the Open
> Library database, which has two levels rather than four: Work, and
> Everything Else. (OCLC's WorldCat appears to have the same division.)
> I want to create a relationship between the Work and the Everything
> Else entity (using their respective identifiers).

Cheers Tod
³OS/360 is like a cow.² Itıs not the most beautiful or efficient, and many
people think they can design a better one. But if you put hay and water in
one end, you get fertilizer from the other end and milk from the middle. You
can use it effectively if you recognize its limitations and remember which
end is which. -- Harlan Mills

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:42:09 UTC