May I add, that name can not only differ from library to library,
but also from country to country.
This is a heritage from the days before internet and globalization
and is a major obstacle nowdays, when geographical boundaries
is diminishing in importance.
Jan
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> This is a very important point which I personally hadn't realized (That
> "AACR2" form of a name can differ, even when done scrupulously, from
> library to library). This is important to systems implemenetors to
> understand how things work so that systems--systems which are
> increasingly going to be dealing with aggregate data from multiple
> previously independent 'catalogs'--can deal with the data correctly, and
> draw the relationships out that have been encoded by catalogers to
> present to users in useful ways and otherwise inform user interfaces.
>
> To me, this is a good example of how our current data landscape is very
> difficult to comprehend correctly. Difficult for systems implementors
> (who may not be catalogers, although they may, like me, have some
> educational background and personal interest in cataloging) and even for
> the mass of day-to-day catalogers who may not have Martha or Jim's
> insight.
>
> To me, this is the importance of making a clear, explicit, formal model
> like FRBR. At it's best, such a model says "This is the nature of our
> data", in a concise, easy to understand way---and in an explicit and
> formal way, not the implicit shared mental model not actually written
> down anywhere way we currently have. (At least many of the things that
> have become important are not written down anywhere that are easy for a
> newcomer to find). This only works if such a model is _truly_ adhered
> to by our other cataloging standards in an explicit way (I am encouraged
> by recent JSC actions to align RDA even more closely with FRBR; I am not
> encouraged by MARC's vague relationship to any conceptual model external
> to it).
>
> This is also why I am so confounded by the LC working group's
> reccommendaitons to _stop_ work on RDA until some magical analysis of
> FRBR is done (and the unspoken implication I get from the paper is that
> they expect this analysis to result in abandonment of FRBR and creation
> of a brand new conceptual model instead). To me, this is the kind of
> thinking about 'monolithic standards' that other parts of the report
> (and Karen Coyle in individual communications) are specifically trying
> to avoid. We specifically _shouldn't_ stop our activities until we have
> some perfected monolithic model to base them on. All these things need
> to happen in parallel. If we haven't taken advantage of the 10 years (!)
> since FRBR was first produced to do this analysis and repair--well,
> we've made our bed, now we lie in it. It's too late to halt all
> activities to try to go back in time. Stopping the momentum that is
> _finally_ building towards bringing all of these standards and practices
> into the contemporary era is exactly the _wrong_ thing to do. In the
> "Standards 2.0" world, all these things happen in parallel---don't stop
> RDA, because basing RDA on FRBR (and in particular the DCAM work that's
> going on, not so much for DCAM in particular as for the rigorous formal
> analysis it forces) _is_ one of the ways we test FRBR in the real world!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> Martha Yee wrote:
>> Jim Weinheimer wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I see that you have publication information in the expression record.
>> FRBR
>> does not have publication information as attributes of the
>> expression, but
>> of the manifestation. As you know, I have serious problems with FRBR's
>> concept of manifestation, but I don't know if I believe that the
>> publication
>> info should go into the expression. (Although I realize this is the
>> practical method for catalogers to determine different
>> expressions/editions,
>> as given in LCRI 1.0).
>>
>> Concerning the point below, coding a name as "AACR2 form" is not
>> entirely
>> correct since 99% of the time, AACR2 forms of name are based on the
>> way a
>> person's or corporate body's name appears on the first item cataloged
>> with
>> cross-references made from any other forms that come into the catalog
>> later.
>> Therefore, it is very possible that different catalogs, both following
>> AACR2, could come up with different forms of the same name. Forms of
>> name
>> are linked to those used in a particular database, so something like
>> "LCNAF"
>> form would be more correct.
>>
>> Jim Weinheimer
>>
>> ***********************
>> reply from Martha:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments, James...
>>
>> I have argued elsewhere (in the FRBR-ization paper that I cited in my
>> initial posting) that the FRBR tables do not correspond to the FRBR
>> entity
>> definitions. If you are going to define expression as any change in
>> content
>> that does not lead to a new work, and manifestation as mere change in
>> format
>> or distribution information, it is absurd to map the statement '2nd rev.
>> ed.' to manifestation. It is clearly a statement about expression.
>> We must
>> be willing to trust publishers' statements on title pages unless proven
>> erroneous. The Yee cataloging rules represent, among other things, my
>> attempt to remap the elements of a bibliographic description to the
>> correct
>> FRBR entities, thereby keeping the original FRBR definitions but
>> discarding
>> the flawed mapping tables at the back of FRBR. There is the question,
>> though, of whether catalogers always have enough information to map
>> all data
>> elements to either expression or manifestation. I suspect that the
>> original
>> designers of the Anglo-American cataloging rules judged that
>> catalogers did
>> not always have enough information, so limited their collocation work
>> to the
>> work level (with main entries).
>>
>> The "AACR2 form" in the original post from Joseph Hollister referred
>> to the
>> fact that I used LCNAF numbers as key identifiers, so you are right that
>> "LCNAF form" would be more accurate.
>>
>> Martha Yee
>> myee_at_ucla.edu
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Digital Services Software Engineer
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
--
Jan Szczepanski
Förste bibliotekarie
Goteborgs universitetsbibliotek
Box 222
SE 405 30 Goteborg, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 31 773 1164 Fax: +46 31 163797
E-mail: Jan.Szczepanski_at_ub.gu.se
Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 04:29:57 EST