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

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

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> 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] *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
>
>
>
> 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
> <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/20150331/f732726a/attachment.html>