J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Properties table
http://docs.google.com/View?revision=_latest&docid=dhpg2gtj_54fgnz8rfs&hl=en
Someone did not take Philosophy 101. Almost every definition uses the
term(s) being defined. The few instances in which examples are given
are helpful; that should be done in each case.
The definitions there are from the "Scope" statement listed in the RDA
documentation. We need to substitute the definitions that RDA will
supply, once we have those. I expect that those will be in one of the
appendices to RDA. Hopefully those will be less circular.
Of course the inclusion of the MARC field tag (rarely done) would make
it much clearer. The inclusion of History of the work as a property
might bring back 503?
There are no MARC tags for this data. This is pre-MARC, in terms of data
development. Should someone use these in a MARC environment, MARC tags
would be added in the documents that define that. This is NOT a
definition of a data structure, like MARC or UNIMARC. This is a
definition of the base elements that could be used to create ANY
application.
Statement of responsibility and series are lacking, as are class
numbers, subject headings, and all entries except title and standard
numbers.
This currently covers only FRBR Group I entities. Some elements from
Group I are not included because more work needs to be done to determine
how to declare them in this format (RDF). The question with series is
whether it shouldn't be another resource, linked to the bibliographic
item being described. So then the series statement would be replaced
with a series link. With Statement of responsibility, the problem there
is that it doesn't stand alone as a data element. "... by" needs to
follow on to something. So the question is: is the entire title plus
statement of responsibility a single element, since it isn't divisible?
In which case, another element needs to be created for the title that
stands alone as an access point. (Remember, we aren't creating a
document here, we are creating the underlying data elements, and they
need to meet certain criteria.) Also, this doesn't yet include
sub-elements, like all of the types of title. We will try adding those
in the next few weeks.
Statement of responsibility and series are properties it seems to me,
even if the others are assigned. But do the others become properties
if included in the item's CIP?
"Properties" is the RDF term for what most of us would call a data
element. Basically, everything is properties. I wish I could point to a
good, clear, simple document that explains RDF, but I haven't found one.
There's a real issue with many standards in the way that they either
re-define terms or re-use terms in a way that has special meaning within
that standard. It's a huge barrier to communication with anyone outside
of the "insider" group. The underlying concepts of RDF are quite simple,
but learning to speak in RDF is like entry into a secret society. I
think when we have enough of this defined and can show applications, it
will all be very clear.
kc
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
