[DCRM-L] We need a schema for that

[Lapka, Francis]

Yes, that is helpful.

The extension of the RDA element set (by specialist communities) is compatible with the JSC’s vision for RDA. I think it would make sense to pursue such a course, either under the umbrella of the next version of  DCRM, or in coordination therewith.

For item-specific notes, RDA gives us two blunt elements: Note on item (2.21) and Note on item-specific carrier characteristics (3.22). We may want to define elements of greater specificity, if it serves user tasks. But probably the scope of these endeavors extends beyond a “holdings format”; the two sample properties in your message, for example, can apply to Manifestations.

There are also some elements/properties that RDA defines for Manifestations (etc.) that we may also want to define for Items – say, for Dimensions, or Color Content.

I like your suggestion that the properties (or data elements) most worth defining will usually correlate to the areas in which we’ve already developed mature value vocabularies.

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: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:41 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program)

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<mailto: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/20150407/05c468d6/attachment.html>