Tom,
thanks for your reply. There are a couple of things I want to clarify:
1. When you say "entity" do you mean the item being cataloged, e.g. the
book?
2. When you say that a label is a "string whose function it is to
distinguish one entity from another," and then you say that "title" is a
label, and "publisher" is a label, do you mean that:
a. title distinguishes between books, and separately publisher
distinguishes between books?
b. or that title + publisher + etc. distinguishes between books?
I ask this because it's hard for me to imagine how publisher name or
series number *by themselves* are labels for the book, since they do not
seem to represent the whole.
3. Is it possible that some other community would have a title data
element that is not a label in your sense? (Or a publisher data element,
or etc.?) I'm trying to understand if "label-ness" is inherent in the
data element, or in the library community's decision rules for the data
that would go into a field called "title."
kc
Tom Delsey wrote:
> 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
>> ------------------------------------
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
|
