I think that I understand what Bob Maxwell is saying, and I agree with him that 4.1 and 4.2 could be construed to mean that only manifestation-level records should be made. A statement to the effect that other levels of the FRBR hierarchy should or could be represented in catalogs would be a good idea. The problem is that the ICP have to look backwards as well as forwards because some countries and probably many libraries will not be able to make use of the World Wide Web and developments in computer software that the Anglo-American cataloging community can. The ICP should also refrain from committing itself to particular technological solutions, just as the Paris Principles tried to do. After all, the relational database is probably not the last word in computer systems. Still, since the ICP are so clearly based on FRBR principles, some bow to the entity-relationship model's impact on the form of catalogs would be a good idea. I think that Jonathan Rochkind made a better reply to Bob's point about authority records than I could. I am learning a great deal from the comments of others. Thanks.
-- Laurence S. Creider Head, General Cataloging Unit & Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, June 2, 2008 3:14 pm, Robert Maxwell wrote: > Like Larry, I apologize for sending this to two lists, but my response to > the original (sent to RDA-L), has a lot more to do with FRBR than RDA ... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:28 PM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 > version of the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES 1 of 2 > > [M Yee] "Secondly, 4.2 carves into stone the approach to the multiple > versions > problem that has created so much havoc in existing catalogs. 4.2 is > completely contrary to the general objective of "the convenience of the > user."" > > [L Creider] Insofar as I understand this point, I disagree with it. A > separate record > for each manifestation is a good idea for both user and librarian because > the practice more clearly represents what is held by a library. The > problem with so many current catalog displays is not the rules, but the > display. More adequate displays or better use of qualifiers would allow > users to pick the manifestation they need without having to guess from > incomplete data. FRBR at least allows records at the works level would > allow users to then search for the manifestation they need by going down a > level in the hierarchy. For example, our catalog, like others, contains > runs of serials that are in paper, microfilm, and electronic formats. > These different expressions need adequate description, but the user would > be better served by encountering first a work-level record that would > provide the call numbers of the various parts of the run. > > [R Maxwell] I, too, am greatly concerned that 4.1 and 4.2 "carve into > stone" the current method of doing things, i.e., single records that cover > all of the FRBR entities. In an entity-relation database, we would not > have "a bibliographic description ... based on the item as representative > of the manifestation ... [including] attributes inherited from the > contained work(s) and expression(s)." It is my contention that we would > instead have separate work, expression, manifestation, and item records, > and separate records for all the other entities as well, all linked by > specified relationship links. This is NOT the scenario described in 4.1 > and 4.2. The problem with 4.2 is NOT that it doesn't call for a separate > record for each manifestation-it obviously does-but that, in combination > with 4.1, it sounds a great deal like that is ALL it calls for, with no > separate work or expression records or for that matter, no records for any > of the other FRBR entities. > > > [M Yee] "Thirdly, the existing principles are also preferable to the > proposed new > principles because they are not nearly as tied down to existing catalog > technology as the proposed new principles are. The new principles make > explict reference to concepts such as "authority records" which may not > even exist any more in a FRBR-ized catalog designed to exist on the > semantic web in which each entity is represented by a URI." > > [L Creider] The Paris Principles with its reference to uniform heading, > entry, > conventional name, reflect the cataloging terminology of their time. > Authority records in some form will still be needed even in a FRBR-ized > catalog. Bare URIs will not be adequate because there will still need to > be references from variant forms. I think that the ICP strike a good > balance between reflecting current conditions (which internationally range > from book and card catalogs to experimental catalogs making use of the > latest developments in search technology and bells and whistles such as > images, links to blogs, social tagging, etc.) and moving to the future. > > [R Maxwell] I do not agree that authority records in some form will still > be needed in a FRBR-ized catalog. If each entity has one and only one > entity record in the database, then that one entity record serves all the > purposes of the current authority records. When cataloging an edition of > Homer's Iliad in English I would need at least: > one work entity record (Iliad) > one person entity record for the author (Homer) > one expression entity record (e.g., Pope's English translation) > one person entity record for the translator (Pope) > one manifestation entity record (London : Penguin, 1996) > [optionally: one corporate body entity record for Penguin and one > place entity record for London, which could be linked to the > manifestation entity record instead of repeating the information > as attributes within the manifestation entity record] > one person entity record for the editor of the manifestation > (Shankman) > one item entity record (the copy in the Lee Library with barcode > 31197213714345) > one concept entity record for each topic (e.g. Trojan war-Poetry; > Achilles (Greek mythology)-Poetry; Homer-Translations into > English) > one entity record for the genre/form (e.g. Epic poetry, > Greek-Translations into English) > one work entity record for the series (Penguin classics) > > These would all be linked to each other by a web of specific relationship > links. > > This sounds like a lot, but each of these entity records would exist only > once in the database. Once created, I would not create a new person entity > record for Homer the next time I needed it. Instead, I'd link to the > existing entity record for Homer. In the long run this is a lot more > efficient than repeating everything every time I create a new description > for a new edition. > > The person entity records for Homer, Pope and Shankman would contain all > the information currently found in the personal name authority records for > these persons, and probably more. The forms of their names would NOT exist > inside the work, expression, or manifestation records-rather those records > would link out to the person entity records. So there would be no need to > "control" the forms-the "controlled form" would be recorded ONCE in the > appropriate person entity record (or in the FRAD model, would be linked to > the person entity record). It would not be typed out again and again in > individual bibliographic records. > > In such an environment we would not need an authority record for Homer > separate from the person entity record that represents him. > > I remain very concerned that the principles are not pointing toward this > structure-so clearly pointed to by FRBR and FRAD-but instead seem to be > looking backward at our current MARC structure. > > Bob > > > > Laurence S. Creider > Head, General Cataloging Unit & > Special Collections Librarian > New Mexico State University > Las Cruces, NM 88003 > Work: 575-646-7227 > Fax: 575-646-7477 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
