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

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

These are great questions, Francis.  I would love to gather ideas and
answer them at the upcoming Bib Standards meeting (paging Nina...)

I think this could go two different ways:
1) Something akin to the RDA Registry, but based on DCRM
2) An extended "holdings format" (for lack of a better phrase), based on
what copy-specific or other nitty-gritty details we (the DCRM community)
tend to include in our descriptions.

I am basically envisioning the property vocabulary companion to the
*Controlled-Vocabularies-*as-value-vocabulary, sort of like:

<this book> *<has binding>* <fanfare bindings>
<this paper> *<has fibers>* <gampi fibers>

And perhaps, "Binding," "Paper," "Printing," "Publishing," "Provenance,"
and "Type" would make suitable classes.

I expect that relationships to the BIBFRAME vocabulary would almost always
be broader.  ...Thus, the need for this work.  (And taking MARC development
as a lesson, I think the rare materials community really ought to develop
its own companion schema.)

Does this help?  Am I making sense?


Thanks,
Allison


On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150406/bd89ae7a/attachment.html>