Weinheimer Jim 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?
I mean E-R linking.
Where MARC now has a name or subject heading (100, 110, ... 650 ...),
there's just the text string of the heading. What belongs there to make
it more reliable and versatile is the control number of the authority
record.
And so with all additional fields as they might be required by RDA
to establish "relationships" between "entities". Any "entity" will
be represented by a record (or what else?), and a record needs to have
an address. (It can be wrapped into a URL whenever communicated in
an HTML page, but in essence it will always be a control number.)
In current MARC, there are no reliable means at all to link
bibliographic records with each other! We are badly in need of this
for whole-part relationships, like multipart records, and then all
the other work - expression - manifestation relationships envisaged
by FRBR and RDA. This has been known for a long time, but what has
MARBI done about it?
B.E.
Received on Thu Nov 29 2007 - 07:57:22 EST