Dear Barbara,
Thank you for your comments, and I think there will be some more
opportunity to discuss the points you raised concerning ISBD during the
London meeting next week. Françoise will be there too.
However, I would just like to respond to your second point regarding the
ISBD:
> Wouldn't it be a useful step at this "early" stage to harmonize ISBD and
> RDA as the JSC and publishers re-open discussions with the publishing
> community? Going in such different directions does not seem helpful to
> international standardization efforts, and it is not clear why ISBD chose
> to take such a divergent approach. Perhaps such harmonization discussion
> would enable us to jointly agree on a better approach. Gordon's analysis
> has certainly enlightened us all about the difficulties with the current
> approach.
I would like to point to the discussions we had during the JSC with ISBD
Review Group and ISSN Network meeting in Glasgow, Nov. 2011, where we
agreed to the two basic points:
http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/isbdrg/JSC_ISBD_ISSN_Outcomesfinal.pdf
ISBD / ISSN Outcomes:
2. All parties agreed that the purpose of harmonization is to make RDA,
ISSN and ISBD records functionally interoperable. That is, records valid
under one of the standards should be capable of being mapped to either of
the other standards. It is recognised that some issues will take longer to
resolve than others and a few issues may prove to be irreconcilable, but
steps can be taken to limit the impact of such differences.
--> The main point here is what we understand under "harmonization": we
all agreed that it covers the "functional interoperability" of the
records, and that we cannot expect one-to-one mapping. Each standard has
it function within its remits, and ISBD has defined Area 0 following very
detailed considerations of the issue, and general approval by the relevant
IFLA's bodies.
23. RDA/ONIX Framework: JSC and ISBD RG agreed to check that the mappings
from ISBD Area 0 vocabularies and RDA content and carrier vocabularies to
the RDA/ONIX Framework are correct.
--> the table we are commenting now is the result of the ISBD RG's work
following this action. Although at some point in time the ISBD RG
discussed the ISBD/RDA table concerning Area 0, we have decided to go into
the direction of one-mapping to the framework which will allow the ISBD -
as an international standard, the two basic functions: (1) alignment with
different cataloguing rules within the library community, not only RDA,
and (2) alignment with standards/schemes of other communities, such as
publishing, CIDOC/CRM, DC, etc. I think that the same holds true for the
RDA.
We have also agreed that ISBD RG should be involved in the future work on
the RDA/ONIX Framework, and subsequently we'll see whether ISBD should
have a need to revise its Area 0.
However, the revision is not in view in the near future: as the ISBD was
published in 2011, the three to four year period has to pass before we
start the revision process. Of course that ISBD RG will, while working and
liaising with other groups, etc. in this period, record all the comments
in order to discuss them in the revision process.
Kind regards,
Mirna
> Françoise and Mirna - Thank you for sharing the draft. I hope my comments
> will find their way to the appropriate persons, if you two are not the
> correct people. You asked that we respond to the Dublin Core list, but
> hopefully the IFLA folks also will get the information. These are my own
> personal opinions.
>
> 1. The Tables. I do not understand why a column is used for the tables
> when there is no information in any of the cells beneath it (storage
> medium and housing format on Table 5; sensory mode and image movement on
> table 4; sensory mode and image dimensionality on table 3; image movement
> and image dimensionality on table 2). Why include an RDA/ONIX Framework
> category, if it doesn't apply for that ISBD category? I understood the
> note on negative values, but this seems there are no values at all
>
> There were several other categories for the RDA/ONIX Framework that are
> not shown at all (extension mode, extension requirement, extension
> termination, interaction, revision mode, revision requirement), so
> presumably someone decided they did not apply?
>
> 2. RDA/ONIX Framework. I find the RDA/ONIX Framework terms and categories
> in need of review - as is planned between the two parties, the JSC (Joint
> Steering Committee for Development of RDA) and the publishing community,
> who created it, hopefully in the next several months.
>
> Wouldn't it be a useful step at this "early" stage to harmonize ISBD and
> RDA as the JSC and publishers re-open discussions with the publishing
> community? Going in such different directions does not seem helpful to
> international standardization efforts, and it is not clear why ISBD chose
> to take such a divergent approach. Perhaps such harmonization discussion
> would enable us to jointly agree on a better approach. Gordon's analysis
> has certainly enlightened us all about the difficulties with the current
> approach.
>
> I also will be at the London meeting and look forward to talking further.
>
> - Barbara Tillett (not acting in any official capacity for this message -
> these are my personal views)
>
> P.S.: One of my staff suggested the mapping document should include
> examples for area 0. - bt
>
> From: List for discussion on application profiles and mappings
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Françoise Leresche
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [DC-RDA] ISBD to RDA/ONIX mapping
>
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> Please find attached a document providing the mappings between the ISBD
> area 0 vocabularies and the RDA/ONIX Framework vocabularies prepared by
> the ISBD/XML Study Group of IFLA Cataloguing Section. Please note it
> provides mappings to base category attributes only.
>
> I am forwarding this document to the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task
> Group for review and comment. Please post any comment to the DC-RDA list
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>.
>
> Mirna Willer, chair of the ISBD Review group, and I will attend the
> inaugural meeting of the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group in London,
> where we shall have the opportunity to discuss the mappings face-to-face.
>
> Best regards
>
> Françoise Leresche
> Chair of the ISBD/XML Study Group
>
> Françoise Leresche
> Biblioth?que nationale de France
> Département de l'information bibliographique et numérique
> Responsable du Pôle Modélisation fonctionnelle
>
> Tél. : (33) 1 53 79 86 29
> Fax : (33) 1 53 79 85 86
> Mél. : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Adoptez un livre !<http://www.amisbnf.org/books.html>
>
> Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement.
>
--
Professor Mirna Willer, PhD
University of Zadar
Department of Information Sciences
Franje Tuðmana 24i
23000 Zadar
Croatia
URL: http://www.unizd.hr
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
t: +385 23 345011
f: +385 23 345055
|
