Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>>
>> 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.
It needs more than a control number. What we really need is a way to
express the relationships in a clear way. I suspect that there are many
more relationships than we code in bibliographic records, primarily
because we have generally relied on humans to supply the semantics of
the relationship. So if we include an added "author" entry for person x,
and the statement of responsibility says: "preface by x," then the user
looks at the record and makes that connection. That doesn't help us do
anything interesting with that data in a machine environment, however.
I also want people to be able to create relationships that aren't
currently included in library data, such as "this item is cited by" or
"this item was influenced by". These are judgments that we may not wish
to include in catalogs, but that our users may wish to include in their
own use of bibliographic data. A format that generally allows one to add
relationships as needed would be ideal. Libraries could still include
only those relationships that they wish to control, but that wouldn't
preclude other uses by other users.
> 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?
You may be mis-interpreting the role of MARBI. MARBI is an advisory
group to LC on the MARC21 data standard. At each ALA it looks at
recommendations that have been received by LC, and that LC has passed on
to the committee. MARBI does NOT originate any proposals itself. As a
matter of fact, I don't know if it is possible to present a proposal
directly to MARBI rather than to and through the Library of Congress. I
also do not know if there are proposals that LC receives but does not
pass on to the advisory group. MARBI also does not have any authority
over the underlying data structure, which is governed by a different
standards group (and I believe that any real improvement in linking may
indeed require a fundamental change in the data structure).
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Thu Nov 29 2007 - 15:02:27 EST