John is using the term "label" as it is defined in the RDA Element Analysis:
"a string whose function is to distinguish one entity from another (e.g.,
names, identifiers, titles." That definition is derived form the <indecs>
metadata framework, and is used to distinguish a "label" as a generic
attribute type from the other four generic attribute types in the <indecs>
framework: quantity, quality, type, and role.
In the RDA Element Analysis table (rows 40-43), the element defined a
"publisher statement" and each of its sub-elements or components are
categorized as "labels" in column C. They are also identified as having
"literal" value surrogates in column E. The same categorizations apply to
the other transcribed elements that Karen has referred to: "title",
"statement of responsibility", "edition statement", "numbering of serials",
"production statement", "distribution statement", and "series statement".
All of those elements are "labels" in the sense that they are strings used
by the producers and publishers of resources to identify the resource (or
the content of the resource). In a less technical sense they can be viewed
as "product labelling".
The RDA Element Analysis table also identifies a number of elements
categorized as "roles" in column C that correspond to the types of entities
that are typically named in "label" elements: "creator" (line 259),
"contributor" (line 260), "authorizing body" (line 262), etc.; "producer"
(line 266), "publisher" (line 267), "distributor" (line 268), "owner" (line
270), "custodian" (line 271), etc.. Those elements are categorized as
having "non-literal" value surrogates, and the syntax encoding scheme is
identified in column G as the syntax specified in RDA for controlled access
points for persons, families, and corporate bodies. It is these latter
elements (not the elements identified as "labels") that correspond to the DC
elements "creator", "contributor", "publisher", etc., and that are used to
name persons, families, and corporate bodies as entities that are related to
the resource described.
In addition to the "names" of such entities, Part B of RDA will define
elements reflecting other attributes associated with the entities person,
family, and corporate body (e.g., dates, address, affiliation, etc.). In a
library application, those elements will normally be recorded as access
point control data in so-called "authority" records. Those records
effectively function as "descriptions" of entities person, family, and
corporate body, and can be linked to the description of the "resource" (as
RDA uses that term) by recording an identifier rather than a "name" in the
creator, contributor, publisher, etc., element.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Response needed?
> Aha! Ok, I think I get it. although I'm not sure what to do with it in
> our project.
>
> Here's my attempt at an explanation for those who haven't taken a
> cataloging class :-) And correct me, since my own cataloging training
> was a very long time ago:
>
> There are some parts of the library record that are a transcription the
> title page of the book as precisely as possible, including errors. This
> part of the record can be seen as a surrogate for the title page. So if
> you have a publisher whose official name is "Giangiacomo Feltrinelli
> Editore" but the title page says simply "Feltrinelli", then it's the
> latter that goes into your publisher name field.
>
> I can see this as the "label" for that publisher for this particular
> publication. Except that you have a label in the record but not the
> thing it is labeling. That is, the publisher as entity isn't represented
> in the record, and the label may or may not be sufficient to connect to
> the entity. Admittedly, it may not be necessary to identify the
> publisher of the item in a precise way, but I can imagine that many
> people would assume that library records do attempt to unambiguously
> identify the publisher. In fact, they don't, although the "labels" of
> place and publisher name from the title page are good clues if someone
> wants to try to make that connection.
>
> In contrast, we do create a precise identity for the named creators, in
> the form of the authority controlled entry, as well as the transcribed
> form. So, if the cover of the book says "T.C. Boyle" and the title page
> says "T. Coraghessan Boyle" then it is the latter that you put in the
> field for the transcribed data. ("Title: The tortilla curtain / T.
> Coraghessan Boyle") The author field, however, gets "Boyle, T.
> Coraghessan". That entry is a precise identifier, and the identifier in
> the bib record links directly to the record in the authority file that
> represents that creator. We do have the problem that we use the display
> form as the identifier, but that's just another adjustment that we need
> to eventually make.
>
> I think we'll need to make a clear distinction between those data
> elements that represent entities (creators, etc.) and those that are
> presenting a surrogate of the item based on some rules (e.g. title page
> transcription). So I would take Mikael's example:
>
> Label:
> Publisher name
> Publisher address
> Font size
> color
> dimensions
>
> Publisher:
> name
> address
> no of employees
> legal contact
> website
> owned by
>
> and make it something like:
>
> Label:
> title transcription
> publisher transcription
> publisher ID [link to publisher "record"][optional]
> series transcription
>
> Publisher:
> name
> address
> no of employees
> legal contact
> website
> owned by
>
> Yes? No? Maybe?
>
> kc
>
> John Attig wrote:
> > It is possible that I am using the term "label" in a different sense
> > than you are expecting. What I am intending to convey is that the name
> > of the publisher is presented as a text string on the resource being
> > described and that this text string is included ("transcribed") as
> > identifying information in the description of that resource. This is
> > different from the name of the publisher as an identifying attribute of
> > the publisher as an entity (although the same text string may be
involved).
> >
> > In our RDA discussions we have been using the term "label" to refer to
> > the text strings (title, statement of responsibility, edition, etc.)
> > that are included (printed) as identifying information on a
> > bibliographic resource. The transcription of these "labels" in
> > appropriate data elements is one of the principal tasks involved in
> > creating the description of a resource.
> >
> > I'm not clear whether this makes the description monolithic -- or that
> > we ought in fact to be getting away from doing that. Perhaps you could
> > expand a bit on that point.
> >
> > John
> >
> > At 10:23 AM 8/4/2007, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >> John,
> >>
> >> I'm having trouble with this publisher-as-label thing because I don't
> >> understand what it's labeling. I could see the publisher name as being
> >> a label for the entity that published the book, but I don't understand
> >> the publisher label in relation to the item being described. Unless,
> >> of course, the entire bibliographic description is being considered a
> >> label for the item being described, but then that makes the
> >> description monolithic, which I think is exactly what we're trying to
> >> get away from.
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
|