[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Toward a new Bibliographic-Item Model

Wed Sep 22 14:28:01 EDT 2010

Hi Dan,

Thanks for starting this discussion. The three Massachusetts networks that
will be moving to Evergreen have had several discussions about volumes or,
to avoid confusion with the Evergreen call number/volume field, what you
referred to as "item-parts." We are particularly interested in how holds can
be placed on these parts, although I can see where there would be other
advantages to more accurately identifying those pieces. It seems like tying
the volume to the call number makes it difficult to place holds on these
parts. I could probably best describe what we would like to see via a
scenario. 

1. Library A adds the 11-disc Planet Earth DVD set to its collection. This
library plans to circulate the set in its entirety to patrons and only adds
one item to the MARC record for this title.
2. At this point, the public catalog only offers the option for title-level
holds to users because individual "item-parts" are not yet being circulated
for this set.
3. Library B adds individual parts to this MARC record with the call number
of 333.95.
4. At this point, the public catalog offers the option for holds on a
specific part.
5. Library C adds individual parts to this MARC record with the call number
of PLA.
6. Library D adds individual parts to this MARC record with the call number
of  QE31 .P58.
7. A patron places a hold on volume 3 of this DVD set. Although the call
numbers are different, the system is able to target volume 3 from Library B,
C or D. 

As you mentioned in one of your previous e-mails, I think it's also
important that there are no additional steps added to the workflow in the
95% of cases where a work does not contain "item-pieces."

Our group is definitely interested in working towards a different model.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 756-0172
(508) 755-3721 (fax)
klussier at masslnc.org
IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo)
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org 
> [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] 
> On Behalf Of Dan Wells
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:42 PM
> To: open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Toward a new Bibliographic-Item Model
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Discussions surrounding the best way to model serials have 
> served to highlight some clear weaknesses in the traditional 
> Record->Call Number->Copy arrangement.
>  This arrangement is time-tested, so it would have been 
> foolishly brave to abandon it too soon.  Still, perhaps it is 
> time to reconsider our model from the ground up.
> 
> What I am about to propose is not fully thought out, and may 
> be unreasonable in reality, but it could at least be the 
> start of moving toward something better, a long-term 
> solution.  It will deal with only the last two layers of the 
> FRBR model, but could be expanded 'upward' to more abstract 
> levels.  As it stands, bibliographic records in use today are 
> generally at the "manifestation" level, so it makes the most 
> sense to start there.
> 
> First, bibliographic records are, by design, singular.  They 
> fully represent a manifestation of a given "expression" of a 
> given "work."  The manifestations themselves, however, can 
> have one or more parts.  This is one missing link in the 
> current chain.  We can partially address it at the call 
> number level, but that is ultimately overloading the meaning 
> of call number and is a workaround we should address.  
> Instead, we might introduce a new concept to the model.  For 
> lack of a better term, we will call it a "manifestation-part".
> 
> Next we have the instance layer, called the "item" layer in 
> FRBR.  Because we have added manifestation-parts, we also 
> must add a concept of "item-parts".  This in turn implies 
> that "item" is not a direct representation of a single 
> physical object, but a concept which can be split or combined 
> as reality dictates.  To accommodate this fact, we might 
> introduce an extra-item layer which can contain one or more 
> item-parts.  For now, at least, we will call this entity a "unit".
> 
> What do we gain by this new abstraction?  Well, I hope a more 
> accurate representation of reality.  Bibliographic records 
> map one-to-one with a manifestation's contents, not its 
> containers.  Having split things as described, a unit may 
> contain just a portion of the contents represented by the bib 
> record (think volume, or accompanying materials like a CD), 
> the entire contents (the most basic unit, our current model), 
> or even the contents of multiple bib records (bound-withs).  
> This model attempts a complete and deliberate separation of 
> named content portions (-parts) from the local reality of 
> their containers (units), and the global splitting at the 
> record level allows accurate matching and comparison of 
> contents, even when the containers used locally vary.
> 
> You may have noticed at this point that call numbers are 
> absent from the model.  This is certainly intentional.  They 
> should be nothing more than one (possibly shared) aspect of 
> the location information for any given unit. 
> Assigning any other meaning invites problems.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Previous related threads:
> http://markmail.org/thread/az3bvnbz7ziyyjfm
> http://markmail.org/thread/5yi5bf5hyqiwvpuw 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> **************************************************************
> *******************
> Daniel Wells, Library Programmer Analyst dbw2 at calvin.edu
> Hekman Library at Calvin College
> 616.526.7133
> 
> 