Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Maybe what we need to do is develop some use cases and see how they would turn out. I'm less concerned about the cataloger view than the user view. You've probably run into some description of looking at FRBR from "bottom-up" vs. "top down." Some folks consider the cataloger view to be bottom-up (from the thing in hand to the Work) while the user view is top down (from the Work to the item on the shelf). Here are three items. I don't know if they are enough to illustrate what worries me: 1. LC control no.: 47003534 LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/47003534 Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977. Main title: Bend sinister [by] Vladimir Nabokov. Published/Created: New York, H. Holt [1947] Description:242 p. 21 cm. 2. LC control no.: 89040559 LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/89040559 Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977. Main title: Bend sinister / Vladimir Nabokov. Published/Created: New York : Vintage International, 1990. Description:xix, 241 p. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 0679727272 : $9.95 Notes: Reprint. Originally published: New York : McGraw Hill, 1947. 3. LC control no.: 81001594 LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/81001594 Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977. Main title: Bend sinister / Vladimir Nabokov ; with a new introduction by the author. Published/Created: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Description:xviii, 217 p. ; 20 cm. Based on the report of the FRBR aggregates group, I believe that we would have: Work 1 (#1, #2) Expression 1 (#1, #2) Manifestation 1 (#1) Manifestation 2 (#2) Work 2 (#3) Expression 2 (#3) Manifestation 3 (#3) The latter is an aggregate work. Professor Wiesenmüller's approach would create in addition something like (if I'm wrong about this, shout out): Work 1 has part1 Expression 1 Manifestation 3 Now, how to make this into something useful for the user. Unfortunately we now have two Works that, as far as the user is concerned, have pretty much the same content. One of the Works points to all of the manifestations with the expression; one of them points to one of the manifestations. This will look redundant to the user. And I don't see how Work 2 can be removed from display algorithmically. If we then add what is essentially an analytic entry that links the non-aggregate Work 1 to Manifestation 3, we're adding even more redundancy for the user. The bottom line is that if every manifestation that has some differences (prefaces, illustrations) becomes a separate Work, adding MORE Work entities to clear this up will result in duplicate entries from the user's viewpoint. I'd love to be proven wrong on this. kc Quoting Casey A Mullin : [Disclaimer: I haven't read the report yet, though it's waiting for me on my desk] To me, the desire/need to have WEM for an aggregate, as well as W(EM) for some or all of the constituents, doesn't bring us back to ISBD/MARC. In some cases (e.g., music sound recordings, conference proceedings), the W and E of an aggregate is merely a placeholder which allows us to describe the Manifestation as a whole, while the constituent WE are the primary entities of interest. But, even in those cases, it can be just as important to describe the aggregate W too, say for purposes of assigning subject terms, relating editors responsible for the compilation, etc. I think WEM for both host and constituent entities always exist; it's just that different types of resources call for differing levels of fullness in describing each entity, ranging from just identifiers (as Jonathan stated) to fleshed-out records/graphs. The bottom line IMO is that our cataloging and end-user interfaces should suppress the entities that are of little interest (i.e., minimally described) while allowing for describing and navigating robust whole-part relationships as needed.And this is definitely a far cry from what MARC allows. Therefore, I don't see the same conflict that Karen does. We can have our cake and eat it too. :) Casey On 1/5/2012 2:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Heidrun, this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not going to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight coupling between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of publishing. In essence, nearly EVERY published item is an aggregate - books have prefaces or illustrations from other sources; musical recordings almost always include more than one Work; serials are of course aggregates by their nature. If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression, and each aggregate E
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the report yet, though it's waiting for me on my desk] To me, the desire/need to have WEM for an aggregate, as well as W(EM) for some or all of the constituents, doesn't bring us back to ISBD/MARC. In some cases (e.g., music sound recordings, conference proceedings), the W and E of an aggregate is merely a placeholder which allows us to describe the Manifestation as a whole, while the constituent WE are the primary entities of interest. But, even in those cases, it can be just as important to describe the aggregate W too, say for purposes of assigning subject terms, relating editors responsible for the compilation, etc. I think WEM for both host and constituent entities always exist; it's just that different types of resources call for differing levels of fullness in describing each entity, ranging from just identifiers (as Jonathan stated) to fleshed-out records/graphs. The bottom line IMO is that our cataloging and end-user interfaces should suppress the entities that are of little interest (i.e., minimally described) while allowing for describing and navigating robust whole-part relationships as needed.And this is definitely a far cry from what MARC allows. Therefore, I don't see the same conflict that Karen does. We can have our cake and eat it too. :) Casey On 1/5/2012 2:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Heidrun, this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not going to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight coupling between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of publishing. In essence, nearly EVERY published item is an aggregate - books have prefaces or illustrations from other sources; musical recordings almost always include more than one Work; serials are of course aggregates by their nature. If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression, and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work well, then we have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're back to ISBD or MARC in that case. Then, if our assumption is that users are interested in the individual Works as well as, or instead of, the aggregate, then another entry has to be made for each individual Work as well. I don't think that's how most of us envision FRBR. I find there to be a conflict between the FRBR view and the need to catalog a package. And I don't think FRBR resolves it well, which is what the aggregate group struggled with. But maybe the problem is deeper. kc Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : We've had some discussions here in Germany about the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates: http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf The general feeling was that the report, though laudable as a philosophical endeavor, is not particularly helpful in practical terms. A number of critical points were raised, and a lot of questions remained unanswered. I've now written a short paper on this topic (four and a half pages, but including lots of pictures), which can be downloaded from my Mendeley profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/ (the only entry under "Working papers", at the bottom of the publications list) or directly, using this link: http://tinyurl.com/7scf9rm My main points are that the model proposed by the Working Group - is counterintutive because the aggregating work is on on the same hierarchical level as the individual works - doesn't provide a helpful solution for the relationship between e.g. an article in a collection and a self-archiving copy of this in a repository - leads to rather odd results when applied to e.g. a monographic series Also, an alternative model is proposed. I would be very grateful for any feedback or discussion about the ideas presented in this paper (which, of course, is only a first draft). I'm sending this to RDA-List and AUTOCAT (sorry for cross-posting). Heidrun Wiesenmueller -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Casey A. Mullin Discovery Metadata Librarian Metadata Development Unit Stanford University Libraries 650-736-0849 cmul...@stanford.edu http://www.caseymullin.com -- "Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of that minority." -Martha Yee
Re: [RDA-L] Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners
>Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners
>January 20, 2012: 1:30-3:00 PM
>Dallas Convention Center, Room C146
>Co-sponsored by ALCTS and ALISE
Whatever other outcomes there may be, I hope there will be a strong
recommendation that imparting basic cataloguing skills return to the
ALA accreditation standards for library schools.
Being a librarian requires a skill set.
Those skills are needed by public service as well as technical service
librarians, and many who plan to become reference librarians wind up
doing some cataloguing, based on Autocat questions from those poor
lost souls. I don't blame them; I blame their library schools.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] ALA Midwinter 2012 Meeting Announcement: Cataloging & Classification Research Interest Group
You're invited to attend the ALCTS CaMMS Cataloging & Classification Research Interest Group at ALA Midwinter Topic: Traditions and Transitions in Batchloaded Catalog Data Date: Sunday, January 22, 2012 Time: 10:30 am - Noon Location: Dallas Convention Center A306 In the current economic climate, libraries must adopt cost-effective methods to facilitate access to collections. Vendor-provided records enable access to individual titles when batch-loaded into the catalog, but often have substantial quality issues. In this year's meeting, CCRIG explores the benefits, challenges, and best practices for batch-loading vendor catalog records. Following the presentations, there will be an opportunity for audience questions and a panel discussion of issues by the presenters. "Batchloading: Current Practices and Future Challenges: A Survey of Large Research Libraries," presented by Rebecca L. Mugridge, Head, Cataloging and Metadata Services, Penn State University Libraries. The presentation reviews survey results showing how batchloading records for access to digital collections can impact staffing, budgets, workflow, and quality standards. The data also examines how batchloading activities are managed within libraries, how information technology issues support and/or hinder batchloading activities, and how libraries assess the effectiveness of batch loading. "Quality Issues in Vendor-provided Records for E-books," presented by Stacie Traill, Cartographic and E-Resources Cataloging Coordinator, University of Minnesota Libraries, and Chew Chiat Naun, Cataloging Strategist, University of Minnesota Libraries. The University of Minnesota Libraries documented and analyzed types of errors in vendor-supplied batchloaded records for electronic book collections. This presentation describes specific error types detected and the methods developed for identifying and correcting errors, including use of the MARCEdit tool. It also discusses unresolved issues in quality control for batchloaded records, and proposes some potential larger-scale solutions. "Fast, but Accurate? Pitfalls of Batch Metadata Editing," presented by Kathryn Lybarger, Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata, University of Kentucky. A discussion of problems and inconsistencies in MARC records for electronic resource packages that may be unexpected and difficult to reconcile using batch processes. Includes tips on how to process record batches to help maintain an accurate catalog, while taking advantage of the efficiency enabled by batch editing. ** This message has been sent to multiple lists. Our apologies for any duplicate cross-posting.** CCRIG Chair Susan A. Massey Head of Discovery Enhancement Thomas G. Carpenter Library University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL 32224 CCRIG Vice-Chair Masha Misco, Catalog & Slavic Librarian Miami University Oxford, OH 45056
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 1/5/2012 5:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Then, if our assumption is that users are interested in the individual Works as well as, or instead of, the aggregate, then another entry has to be made for each individual Work as well. I don't think that's how most of us envision FRBR. Is "another entry" neccesarily anything more than an identifier? And don't you neccesarily need an identifier for something "of interest" anyhow? As well as ideally relations explaining how it relates to whatever else contains it (knowing an illustration is contained in a particular book is kind of important information, although may not absolutely required in all use cases). I don't think that means you need to create identifiers/relations for any theoretical thing that could _conceivably_ be of interest. It would make more sense to create as needed as things become actually of interest. I am far from convinced that FRBR is incapable of describing what we need, although it may need some fine tuning.
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun, this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not going to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight coupling between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of publishing. In essence, nearly EVERY published item is an aggregate - books have prefaces or illustrations from other sources; musical recordings almost always include more than one Work; serials are of course aggregates by their nature. If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression, and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work well, then we have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're back to ISBD or MARC in that case. Then, if our assumption is that users are interested in the individual Works as well as, or instead of, the aggregate, then another entry has to be made for each individual Work as well. I don't think that's how most of us envision FRBR. I find there to be a conflict between the FRBR view and the need to catalog a package. And I don't think FRBR resolves it well, which is what the aggregate group struggled with. But maybe the problem is deeper. kc Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : We've had some discussions here in Germany about the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates: http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf The general feeling was that the report, though laudable as a philosophical endeavor, is not particularly helpful in practical terms. A number of critical points were raised, and a lot of questions remained unanswered. I've now written a short paper on this topic (four and a half pages, but including lots of pictures), which can be downloaded from my Mendeley profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/ (the only entry under "Working papers", at the bottom of the publications list) or directly, using this link: http://tinyurl.com/7scf9rm My main points are that the model proposed by the Working Group - is counterintutive because the aggregating work is on on the same hierarchical level as the individual works - doesn't provide a helpful solution for the relationship between e.g. an article in a collection and a self-archiving copy of this in a repository - leads to rather odd results when applied to e.g. a monographic series Also, an alternative model is proposed. I would be very grateful for any feedback or discussion about the ideas presented in this paper (which, of course, is only a first draft). I'm sending this to RDA-List and AUTOCAT (sorry for cross-posting). Heidrun Wiesenmueller -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
[RDA-L] Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners
[Please pardon any duplications from cross-posting] Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners January 20, 2012: 1:30-3:00 PM Dallas Convention Center, Room C146 Co-sponsored by ALCTS and ALISE "On the Record", the report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, stresses the need for an up-to-date educational preparation of catalogers, metadata specialists, indexers, and other librarians and information professionals, so that the educational system will continue to produce professional librarians whose skill sets match the needs of the marketplace that they will be entering. To address this issue ALCTS and ALISE are convening a meeting for librarians involved in bibliographic control (writ large) and educators. This hour and a half-long forum will feature three speakers, providing varying perspectives on the current state of cataloging and metadata education and what cataloging and metadata practitioners need to know in the workplace. Time will be provided for the speakers to respond to each other's presentations, and to questions and comments from the audience. The session will be moderated by Dr. Arlene G. Taylor, Professor Emerita of the University of Pittsburgh School of Information Sciences, and will feature the following panelists: Shilpa Rele, Digital Program Librarian at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, CA, and 2009 MLIS Graduate from the University of California, Los Angeles. As a recent LIS graduate, Shilpa will discuss coursework and internships that she took during her MLIS program, and how well they prepared her for her current position. Beth Picknally Camden, Patricia and Bernard Goldstein Director of Information Processing, University of Pennsylvania. As a library administrator, responsible for managing catalogers and metadata specialists, Beth will discuss how well the desired skill sets for catalogers and cataloging managers are being developed in current LIS graduates; and how well libraries are meeting the needs for continuing education and professional development. Dr. June Abbas, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma Department of Library and Information Studies. As an LIS faculty member, June will discuss the current state of LIS cataloging education from a faculty perspective and initiate an open discussion with the audience.
