On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Is your "agent" property at least related to dcterms:contributor?
That will depend on how it is defined in RDA, won't it? So since it
doesn't exist yet, my answer is: I don't know. It is possible that RDA
would define the element as a "heading" which has special meaning. It
would be ideal to have the RDA "agent" (or whatever it gets called) be
a member of the dcterms:Agent class, if nothing else.
kc
>
> /Mikael
>
> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
> Från: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Skickat: den 17 november 2008 16:16
> Till: [log in to unmask]
> Ämne: Re: [DC-RDA] New analysis of RDA cataloguer scenarios 2 and 3; scenario 1 revised
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Stephens, Owen
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Alistair,
>>
>> In Scenario 1, you say that 'publisher' is not defined in RDA Element
>> Vocabulary. Is this not
>> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/93.html?
>
> Owen, for reasons that are complex, there are two RDA schemas:
> elements and roles. The roles terms came from a list that LoC created,
> and does not include publisher. Publisher (and manufacturer) are
> included in the RDA elements, while other roles like "illustrator" or
> "editor" are in the list of roles. So we have an RDA-ism here that
> needs to be worked out. I assume that Alistair was looking for
> publisher in the list of roles, where it logically would be.
>
> The RDA developers are clearly thinking in terms of today's records,
> where you have a field for a personal name, and you can add the "role"
> to that field. But you also have a field for the publication
> information, and that has an element called publisher (not an element
> for a corporate name with the role publisher). This means that there's
> an inconsistency in how agents are treated in RDA. For compatibility
> with RDF, we should treat all of the all of the roles as properties,
> and allow the value to be either a person or a corporate entity. This,
> however, is very different from how librarians think about their data.
> In fact, the use of roles has diminished over recent decades, and
> names are added to records without any roles being included, meaning
> that there really is no "author" field, just a name field. It's not
> that hard to find records (see: http://lccn.loc.gov/80008730) with an
> author and a translator, and both are simply coded as a personal name.
> The roles are only visible in the "statement of responsibility" that
> follows the title, but that's a text field intended for the human
> reader.
>
> This is one of those areas of library cataloging that puzzles me. For
> all of the precision of the rules, in the end we are very imprecise
> about the relationships of creators to the works. I'm not at all sure
> that we'll see library records using the roles as properties, and I
> suspect that we'll need to define a generic "agent" property so that
> we can create records that look like the ones in catalogs today.
>
> kc
>
> p.s. I know you asked a simple question... this is a rant I just had
> to get out of my system.
>
>>
>>
>> Owen Stephens
>> Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
>> Central Library
>> Imperial College London
>> South Kensington Campus
>> London
>> SW7 2AZ
>>
>> t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA)
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alistair Miles
>>> Sent: 12 November 2008 18:11
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: New analysis of RDA cataloguer scenarios 2 and 3; scenario 1
>>> revised
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've just spend another day working on the RDA cataloguer scenarios,
>>> here's what I've done.
>>>
>>> I reviewed and revised the RDF expression of scenario 1 in light of a
>>> small number of changes to the RDA elements vocabulary since
>>> 2008-10-11 (when I did the last revisition):
>>>
>>> http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/1
>>>
>>> I created a first draft RDF expression of scenarios 2 and 3:
>>>
>>> http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/2
>>> http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios/3
>>>
>>> The analysis at the bottom of each of these pages checks that all
>>> classes and properties used in the scenario are defined in either the
>>> RDA Elements, RDA Roles or FRBR Core vocabularies. It also shows any
>>> major issues for these vocabularies, e.g. where a property is required
>>> but not defined somewhere -- the fact that there are very few of these
>>> demonstrates that the vocabularies are sufficient to express the given
>>> scenarios.
>>>
>>> Some further notes are at
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/AlistairMiles/AnalysisNotes20081
>>> 112
>>>
>>> I haven't gone through these new scenarios yet to try to
>>> systematically capture issues that they raise, I think it's probably
>>> better to work through the remaining cataloger scenarios (4, 5, 6)
>>> then go through and do a systematic analysis, capturing issues in a
>>> central place.
>>>
>>> That's all for now.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Alistair
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alistair Miles
>>> Senior Computing Officer
>>> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
>>> Department of Zoology
>>> The Tinbergen Building
>>> University of Oxford
>>> South Parks Road
>>> Oxford
>>> OX1 3PS
>>> United Kingdom
>>> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -- ---
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
--
-- ---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|