[DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program)

[Lapka, Francis]

Allison,

I’d like to hear more about what you have in mind. Would this schema/vocabulary be something like an encoding-agnostic element set (to borrow RDA terminology)? How broad is the scope? Does it duplicate data elements present in other schema? How much coordination is needed with our next version of DCRM?

Keep nudging us.

Francis




From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:36 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program)

I fully appreciate Francis and Deborah's cautions regarding the uncertainty of our bibliographic future and volunteer commitments.  Still, I think we can begin work on (recommendations for) a property vocabulary.  This vocabulary could eventually be incorporated into BIBFRAME, or the RDA Registry, or act as a standalone resource, or something else entirely -- we don't have to make that decision now.


Allison



On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
Francis,
I would be pretty nervous about trying to create our own database, independent of OCLC. Unless we are in a position to buy all of OCLC’s records on old books and then revise all of them. I think Allison’s idea of linking the annotations on Bibframe to “appropriate” OCLC records is more realistic. I realize that means we would still have to wade through all the duplicate records to find “appropriate” ones. But after all, that’s what we’ve been doing for quite awhile. And since there are a limited number of new editions of pre-1801 books yet to be cataloged, this problem should diminish over time. Admittedly there are still lots of non-English-language records being added, but I generally ignore those unless all the English records are particularly poor, in my effort to figure out how to describe a book.

Ted Gemberling

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:55 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program)

I partially agree with your suggestion, Allison (the big picture bit); but linking to OCLC for edition (Manifestation) descriptions would be less than ideal (see my previous message).

If BIBFRAME succeeds in becoming the standard for the representation of library data on the web, then RBMS should work to develop the schema it needs within the BIBFRAME framework. Although the current BIBFRAME model represents copy-specific descriptions as Annotations, it’s my impression that they are reconsidering this decision; that is, they may revise the model to recognize Items (/Holdings) as a proper resource. See:

http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1501&L=bibframe&T=0&P=13353<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.loc.gov_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FA2-3Dind1501-26L-3Dbibframe-26T-3D0-26P-3D13353&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=o4LOnGxrUqz8HpGxruCUdpyK8Rat28L4F5p7AT6q8dQ&s=uuyuKOG_67gPi9oGWhVZxzx2teb8zS2se9QoKes5Yzc&e=>

Yes, we should definitely push for a schema (in BIBFRAME, or elsewhere if need be) with data elements that precisely match the copy-specific information our community uses. I’d be happy to contribute to such work.

Francis



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:08 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program)

I hesitate to send this out to the DCRM list, but since we're on the subject...

The IR thread has surfaced a well-known problem: that rare materials users need better access to detailed and copy-specific information -- and they need it from an aggregated, Web-based portal, not through everybody's individual catalogs.

I do not think that we, the DCRM community, need to rely on OCLC or WorldCat to achieve this end.  At a 2014 Bib Standards meeting, I suggested an alternate solution:

RBMS should develop a schema for the copy-specific and detailed information that rare materials libraries aim to capture.  Descriptions in this new format could be linked to BIBFRAME resources as an Annotation, and linked to OCLC records for the appropriate edition.

Once we have structured data, we can develop the cross-institutional datastores and access means that our users need.

Thoughts?  Volunteers?  The IR thread has re-invigorated my interest in this idea, and I'd like to push forward.


Best,
Allison

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150406/db94ceff/attachment-0001.html>