Bernhard Eversberg wrote,
> Many people need to be better informed first about FRBR and its goals,
> and problems of its implementation.
> I see one big problem, and that is the linking of records. Up until now,
> there are no record links other than the "textual" ones in MARC
> records
> as they are. Using control numbers for linking presents a much bigger
> challenge, esp. in data exchange and sharing. But if this challenge
> cannot be met, I'm afraid there can be only half-hearted FRBR
> implementations, far from the full potential of the concept.
What do you mean by linking here? Are you talking about "conceptual linking" such as with the various types of headings, or more mechanical linking, such as articles and chapters of books cataloged separately, but all still linking to the larger package? (In MARC21 terms, the difference between 100/700, 6xx, 240, 4xx/8xx vs. the 77x entries)
All of these entries could, and should, be handled through various URIs, so a discussion would certainly be in order. It could result is a tremendous savings in time plus a gain in accuracy, but there would need to be a great deal of agreement among all sorts of communities.
Although I have been hitting FRBR rather hard lately on other lists (primarily due to the "manifestation"), this is one area where I would not fault the creators of FRBR. I believe these capabilities were little understood when FRBR came out.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Thu Nov 29 2007 - 06:42:00 EST