Posting to Bibframe
On 1/24/2016 5:56 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
I think you’re looking at the wrong events. Or looking at events wrong. The AV modeling study has much better examples of when events matter, and it appears that those for whom they matter are already recording them in their data. I highly recommend reading that study before this thread goes further off the rails.
I don’t think the discussion has gone so far off the rails, but thanks for pointing this out. I think people are gaining something out of it. After looking at the report it seems as if the events wanted are primarily for individual audio/video performances of various types, so the other types of events I discussed are of less importance for this thread.
In this particular case, this makes the entire issue much easier than what I had discussed. Since library catalogs do not currently encode this type of performance information, it becomes a case of a “blank slate”. Therefore, Bibframe should be free to reuse any other event/performance types of RDF that already exists, and there seem to be some out there now to choose from. This is normal and shows an advantage of linked data and how it should be done, for all of the reasons mentioned in the talk pointed out by Martynas. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-U-Qd37WgE)
It makes much more sense in all kinds of ways to use other standards when they exist, and if those standards need to be supplemented in some ways, that can be done through additions to your own name space.
The issue of whether catalogers should encode this type of performance information is beyond the scope of Bibframe and enters the area of user needs, cataloging rules, management, staffing, training, etc. etc.