On 22 June 2012 at 14:42 Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> (Just a few days ago I was with TomB in Florence and suggested a
> "macro-ISBD" that treats each ISBD area as a single string -- which is
> to my mind how ISBD treats the data. I will do a short email on that,
> perhaps.)
>
</snip>
The draft ISBD AP [1] takes this approach, I think. The first set of statement
templates treat each ISBD area (0-8) as an aggregated statement with
corresponding SES. The components of each aggregated statement are (often)
themselves aggregated statements, and this can cascade for four or so levels of
aggregation.
ISBD is generally concerned only with transcriptions of strings found on the
resource being described. The exception, newly introduced to the latest
consolidated edition, is the use of controlled vocabularies in area 0 (content
and media type); these are treated as VESs in the AP. Whether ISBD continues
this trend towards things rather than strings is a moot point. The primary
purpose of ISBD is to create whole records that can be exchanged between
national bibliographic agencies. The content of the record is intended to be
descriptive (strings, not things). ISBD does not address relationships between
the resource being described, or relationships with other entities such as
agents, places, etc. (things). The next revision of ISBD will take place in
around 3-4 years' time, and the ISBD Review Group is keen to hear arguments for
best practice, linked data, etc. to inform that revision. It should be noted,
however, that the I in ISBD needs to accommodate the needs of environments where
little or no machine processing is available.
Cheers
Gordon
[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Design_Patterns#ISBD_DSP
|