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

..Well said, Jeff.  In that case, maybe the group needs to decide
what other model/design will satisfy the same need (and how important
multiple sources for web-based resources is to the user -- free source
vs. subscription-based source, for example).
Tom 

	Tom Adamich, MLS 

	President 

	Visiting Librarian Service 

	P.O. Box 932 

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

	330-364-4410 

	vls@tusco.net [1] 

----- Original Message -----
From: "YoungJeff (OR)" 
To:"Ross Singer" 
Cc:"James Weinheimer" , "public-schemabibex@w3.org" 
Sent:Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:25:46 +0000
Subject:Re: Kill the Record! (Was: BIBFRAME and schema.org)

Note that Schema.org [2] already has a mechanism to indicate "Item" in
the FRBR sense: schema:IndividualProduct. If you want to relate those
items to an abstraction that is analogous to FRBR Manifestation, you
can use schema:model to link to a schema:ProductModel. 
 Aside, I would argue that the defining characteristic of Item is that
it has "location". For physical items that location can be determined
by geolocation (for example) For Web items (aka Web documents), the
location can be determined by its URL. 
 Jeff

 Sent from my iPad 
 On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Ross Singer"  wrote:

  But this all really how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
isn't it? 
 We've already established that we're not interested in defining any
strict interpretation of FRBR in schema.org [4]: we're just trying to
define a way to describe things in HTML that computers can parse. 
 Yes, I think we need to establish what an item is, no I don't think
we have to use FRBR as a strict guide. 
 -Ross. 
 On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM, James Weinheimer  wrote: 
  On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:

	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 [6], 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.

 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 [7] are just like I mentioned in
archive.org [8] 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 [9] 

 When you click on an individual record,
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367 [10] 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 [11], 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 [12].

 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 [13]
FIRST THUS http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ [14]
FIRST THUS FACEBOOK PAGE https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus [15]
COOPERATIVE CATALOGING RULES
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ [16]
CATALOGING MATTERS PODCASTS
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html [17]   
 

-------------------------
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

Links:
------
[1] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[2] http://Schema.org
[3] mailto:rxs@talis.com
[4] http://schema.org
[5] mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
[6] http://arxiv.org/
[7] http://arxiv.org
[8] http://archive.org
[9]
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick
[10] http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367
[11] http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft
[12] http://arxiv.org
[13] mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
[14] http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
[15] https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
[16] http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
[17] http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html