Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

The word "record" appears to part of the problem. I'm speaking of identifiable manifestations/items that exist in the world regardless of whether anyone has described them or not. I agree that manifestation records in the past tended to mix things up terribly, but I'm hoping that doesn't pollute our thinking about the entities themselves moving forward.

The distinction between manifestation and item still exists in the digital realm, but we need to recognize how the mechanics of this distinction play out in modern Web/licensed use cases like the ones I mentioned. The way catalogers describe these entities needs to facilitate these mechanisms, not the other way around.

Kill the record! :-)

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:41 PM, "James Weinheimer" <weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 04/07/2013 15:37, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
<snip>
I guess my argument isn't clear yet. I'm suggesting that one conceptual manifestation URI (called a "generic resource") can serve as the hub ("canonical") identifier for all the various and distributed language/format variant "files" (Items) that could be located elsewhere on the Web. That one generic manifestation URI can do the negotiation for language, media-type, and even appropriate copy.
</snip>

I believe I understand this point, but I am emphasizing that this is a completely different meaning of what a manifestation record is currently. In traditional cataloging, different formats get different manifestations, such as the movie "Moby Dick" on movie film, or on videocassette, or DVD, or Blu-Ray, or streaming, would all be considered different manifestations, just as the book Moby Dick would get different manifestations based on number of pages, publishers, printing dates and so on.

So, if we want another type of record, such as this copy in the Internet Archive, http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale01melv, where different manifestations are brought together: pdf, epub, Daisy, Kindle, etc. then that is fine--and I would be for that--but considering a record like this to be similar to manifestations would be horribly confusing for (at least) catalogers, and perhaps for others.

This is why I am saying that while the FRBR model *may be* OK in the printed world (and I doubt that it is so useful, but for the moment will accept that it "may be"), in the online environment the FRBR is limiting and other models are needed. In any case, modern systems can merge and sort information in all kinds of ways, and can allow for new types of flexibility for today's world.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto: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