tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10632279.post111195574887736494..comments2024-03-18T08:34:43.169-04:00Comments on Inquiring Librarian: Random thoughts on XOBISJenn Rileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02521865581380075952noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10632279.post-1112477838852137702005-04-02T16:37:00.000-05:002005-04-02T16:37:00.000-05:00Jenn, If you would send me some examples of the sp...Jenn, If you would send me some examples of the specific relationships that aren't being handled adequately by UTs, I would enjoy teasing them about from a Xobian perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10632279.post-1112398229653948102005-04-01T18:30:00.000-05:002005-04-01T18:30:00.000-05:00Thanks so much for the comments, Dick! Sorry it's ...Thanks so much for the comments, Dick! Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. The usual apologies about travel, deadlines, etc., apply.<BR/><BR/>I think my statment "... the relationships as specified focus more on subject-type relationships rather than relationships among bibliographic items" you quote probably should have been written, "the subject-type relationships in XOBIS are more obvious to me on first reading than relationships among bibliographic items." Coming at the XOBIS initiative from a FRBR-ish perspective, I first looked for how those sorts of connections would be handled, and got a bit bogged down in the other stuff. But that's my approach to the first reading, certainly not a good reason to structure a report a certain way! :-) I'm sure the potential of bibliographic relationships would emerge more clearly to me on subsequent readings.<BR/><BR/>I need to look at the uniform title authority in XOBIS more carefully. UTs are great for a lot of things, but we've found in Variations2 they don't always make obvious the relationships we'd like them to. Something to think about, for me.<BR/><BR/>Anybody from XOBIS going to be at the OCLC FRBR meeting on May 2-4?Jenn Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02521865581380075952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10632279.post-1112162350764200992005-03-30T00:59:00.000-05:002005-03-30T00:59:00.000-05:00Jenn, I appreciate your comments on XOBIS. Altho...Jenn, I appreciate your comments on XOBIS. Although you raise many issues, I couldn't resist a comment or two.<BR/><BR/>"... the relationships as specified focus more on subject-type relationships rather than relationships among bibliographic items."<BR/>XOBIS treats all relationships equally, leaving emphasis up to the cataloger. It actually has unlimited possibilities for bibliographic relationships, such as "Based on", "Parody of", "Cited by," as well as the typical ones. On the other hand, it embraces other relationships, such as those between two authors ("Colleague" or "Husband"), between an author and a concept ("Discoverer"), between two places ("Capital", between a word and a person ("Coined by"), etc., etc. All of these relationships can potentially be under authority control and in turn have their own relationships. It does make a rather neat little package considering the scope.<BR/><BR/>As to the item vs. work, in XOBIS both title authorities and bibliographic titles live in the same structure. A 'uniform title' authority behaves like an umbrella record. There is an example of Dame de Pique that explores the authority/work/version/performance issue that may help with your musical interests. (Without specifics this is a very large topic to tackle.)<BR/><BR/>We deliberately generalized XOBIS to attempt deal with fundamentals and especially to help address the museum/library continuum. Of course, it probably shows that this effort was made in a medical library. :-)<BR/><BR/>Our principal bibliography is http://medlane.info/bibliography.php and for a more accessible intro, try CCQ article http://elane.stanford.edu/laneauth/XOBIS_CCQ/XOBIS_CCQ.html<BR/><BR/>I deeply appreciate that your scratching more than the surface.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Dick<BR/>Another of the authors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com