From: email@example.com Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:50:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199412131250.HAA08791@ws02-00.rsch.oclc.org> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Library Standards and URIs Larry suggested I go ahead and post these notes to the list. Its just an outline, and hence may be less than entirely scrutable to those not in attendence (perhaps those who were, as well ;-). I'd be happy to take up the discussion with any who have comments or questions. stu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF December, 1994 San Jose, California URI Working Group Existing Library Standards and the Evolution of Uniform Resource Characteristics Stuart Weibel Senior Research Scientist Office of Research OCLC Online Computer Library Center email@example.com I. Objective of the Library Community: Integrate electronic resource discovery with existing paper resource discovery and retrieval. (don't break what works) II. Basic Assumptions about URCs and their relationship to existing library standards: The Virtual library and the RL library must interoperate if the needs of users are to be met. Different object types have different requirements; not everything should be described in the same ways or with the same level of detail. URCs will have type attributes and perhaps level attributes. URC types should share a common kernel of data elements. URCs will be mapped algorithmically into and out of MARC records; to the extent they are designed with this in mind, the Net and existing libraries will work better together. MARC need not be the syntactical wrapper for URCs, but the rules for encoding MARC records (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, or AACR-2) should inform those elements of the URC that are similar. Creation of URCs will take place over a wide spectrum of sources and methods, with varying degrees of richness and quality: - professional catalogers - publishers - authors - content experts - automatic cataloging The richness and quality of records will thus vary across a broad range; it will be necessary to develop procedures and means to promote records from one level to a higher level, by addition of more information, or application of authority control, for example. III. Authority Control: Authority control will loom ever larger as an essential feature of networked information management as the quanity of information on the networks increases. Authority control helps brings some things together and separate others. For example, many versions of a single intellectual work can be grouped as a single work by the application of a Uniform Title. Name authority records can be used to distinguish among many objects having apparently similar author fields, but different actual authors. There are exisiting procedures (and data files) for addressing these issues now extant in the world of bibliographic description that can be applied to networked information as this becomes necessary, including: Personal Names Corporate Names Geographic Names Uniform Titles Series Subjects (controlled vocabularies) IV. Versioning A very hard problem: countervailing priorities generally obtain. A gerneral reader may just want any copy of Hamlet; multiple versions in a catalog are confusing. A scholar may be very interested in the history of editions of Hamlet; for her, the same information that was an annoyance to the general user is essential to her purpose. Examples of two strategies for control numbers that have implications for versioning: ISBN - Assigned by publishers (distributed naming authotrity - Essentially an inventory control identifier - the same intellectual work is often assigned many ISBNs; successive editions, different formats, etc. ISSN - Assigned by a central authority - Oriented more towards identification of intellectual content than an artifact. V. Possible Candidates for URC Kernels Text Encoding Initiative Headers: Part of a ten year project to define the structure (in SGML) of scholarly text. Considerable attention has been paid to mapping into and out of existing bibliographic data models. Core Bibliographic Record: A new standard of bibliographic description, positioned between full cataloging minimal level cataloging standards. The goal is to reduce the costs of cataloging without substantiallty compromising the usefulsness of the resulting records. May provide some insights as to a target level of description for electronic resources. VI. Further Reading: The following articles afford an introduction to TEI headers and their application, as well as some background on the evolution of cataloging standards in libraries. The Documentation of Electronic Texts Using Text Encoding Initiative Headers: An Introduction Richard Giordano Library Resources and Technical Services 38(4) 389-401 1994 Discusses the benefits and possible faults of the TEI header as a basis for electronic text cataloging. A basic introduction to TEI headers Cataloging Electronic Texts: The University of Virginia Library Experience Edward Gaynor Library Resources and Technical Services 38(4) 403-413 Describes one of the first efforts to integrate electronic document cataloging in a conventional library environment; discusses aspects of mapping between TEI headers and MARC records. The Core Record: A New Bibliographic Standard Willy Cromwell Library Resources and Technical Services 38(4) 415-424 1994 A background paper on the development of a new cataloging level intended to reduce the costs of cataloging; less extensive than conventional full-level cataloging, more detailed than minimal-level cataloging.