Final Comment: Semantic Architecture is not Cataloging - MARC + BIBFRAME

Let's keep Jeff's phrase in mind when we think of what SchemaBibEx is trying
to accomplish - create a semantic architecture-based markup protocol for
asset cataloging (in the context of MARC and, eventually, BIBFRAME) :

 

The way catalogers describe these entities needs to facilitate these
mechanisms, not the other way around.

 

Tom

 

Tom Adamich, MLS

President

Visiting Librarian Service

P.O. Box 932 

New Philadelphia, OH 44663

330-364-4410

vls@tusco.net

 

From: James Weinheimer [mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 3:35 AM
To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Kill the Record! (Was: BIBFRAME and schema.org)

 

On 04/07/2013 22:04, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
<snip>

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! :-)

</snip>

Now we are getting into some interesting matters. I have discussed the
concept of "no record" and I still have problems with such an idea because I
think there will still be "records"--they will just be made a little
differently. In that sense, we are talking more about internal data
structures than anything else and in fact, it will just keep the current
situation because in our current RDBMS, there are currently no "records" as
such but little bits and pieces linked together. From the user's point of
view however, they see separate records just as they have always done.

Perhaps I am just being dense, but it seems to me that from the user's point
of view--and it is absolutely critical to see things from the user's point
of view--they will still be seeing descriptions of specific resources. I
agree that people do not want to see references to innumerable identical
items repeated ad infinitum, but they still want to see how the various
resources they can access are distinguished, that is, if those resources
actually are identical or if they are different in some ways. 

So, when you say that "The distinction between manifestation and item still
exists in the digital realm" I need to ask: could you show me some examples
in the digital realm where a single manifestation has lots of different
items? The Internet Archive example I gave earlier mixes manifestations and
items together and does not fit the FRBR framework. You have mentioned
content negotiation, but I still see that as a completely different concern:
one of permissions to access *the same item*, not a matter that one
organization will see a specific version of an epub of a novel while another
organization will see another epub version of the novel. Each gets access to
precisely the same file. 

Until I see a significant number of examples of "separate items"--that is,
duplicates, that need to be organized under a "manifestation" I will
continue to say that we need a different model for digital materials,
perhaps similar to what we see in the Internet Archive. Although there are
tons of problems with the metadata in the Internet Archive, I happen to like
that part of the records, so that kind of a function would be fine with me,
but we should not make the mistake of calling such a conglomeration of
manifestation/items that we see there as a "manifestation". It is not an
expression or a work. It is something quite different.

Again, I have no love for the FRBR structure and am on record saying that it
is based mainly on theoretical, academic and historical ideas that have
little relation to what people want and need today. I think there is more
than ample proof of that. Still, if we are going to use FRBR terminology,
the terms should refer to the same concepts. Otherwise, it leads to complete
confusion.

-- 
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