Thank you for the thoughts, I very much appreciate the feedback. I’ve tried to answer your questions below. I hope some of these thoughts are useful, please feel free to follow up with more questions or thoughts, especially if something is confusing.
I’ve been reviewing your metadata model and the comments and wonder if what we need is to create a linked model that will cover both the bibliographic metadata and the management metadata in a single group. Perhaps a combination of RM specialist and Metadata specialists could help information this work. I’m concerned that if we work on this model independent or before considering the descriptive metadata domain, we might not end up with an optimized model, or different functions of FOLIO could be siloed without that being our intention.
I agree, both resource management and bibliographic metadata specialists need to inform this work, I would very much like to see participants from both communities contribute to a shared or linked model that is supportive of the needs of both groups.
As I think came up when I was replying to Kristen (@Kristen_Wilson) one of the challenges with the development of the knowledge base and metadata capabilities of FOLIO is that it is happening concurrently with the UX/Analysis process for many of the domains that will need to use it. I’m open to any ways we can improve feedback into these models, whilst this is ongoing.
Kristen mentioned the idea of work, and I feel that something should be here as well. Are you considering BIBFRAME? I wonder if BF 2.0’s model (https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe2-model.html) could be incorporated into the model. It would provide that “work”-level object, and also bring in ways to associate description and access to the particular object in question. You already have an instance and item in the model, so I feel like this could be quite positive, and if we could pull it off, revolutionary. We do have some experts on linked data and BF as part of the project, and this could be a wonderful way to build a model from the ground up on linked data principles that would also support the management needs of a library collection.
The model in my head (rather than the limited one in the document) has been heavily influenced by what I have managed to read about BIBFRAME, though I still have a lot to learn about it and it would seem that it doesn’t come across strongly in the diagram in the document.
I imagine the concept of a work will appear in this model over time, I am hesitant to introduce it early, as it is easier to introduce something new than replace an existing concept in the system.
what needs could we help fulfil by modelling a work at this point?
Other than work, what concepts from BIBFRAME do you think would be useful to include sooner rather than later?
I would very much like the input and involvement from experts in Linked Data and BIBFRAME. I believe this comes back to your previous point, that this model spans multiple interest groups and contexts.
You mention AACR in a metadata standard of “beyond AACR.” But at this point most libraries have implemented RDA. Do you mean really “beyond RDA?”
This was suggested by an early reviewer, in an attempt to emphasise the need not to couple ourselves to a limited set of metadata representation, there may well be a better way of saying that without referring to a specific standard.
I haven’t seen much about RDA implementations in a library context, are there any examples you can point me towards?
For outcomes, will the standard support original descriptive work and setting of access points, or is that something that you see happening outside of FOLIO with that data being brought in through a similar mechanism to copy cataloging? This could be seen as similar to catalogers doing original work in OCLC and then importing the finished record. This could be limiting, however, for non-OCLC (or other utility) members.
If original descriptive work refers to the creation of new bibliographic metadata, then I believe this model will support that. It is, in part, along with localised customisation, the primary driver between the idea of distinguishing between an internal and external instance. This feeds into an aspect of different cataloging approaches which we have been referring to as copy and reference cataloging.
What are access points in this context?
How do you want to handle representations for non-book/journals? Do you see managing more complex objects besides individual monographs, such as archival collections?
At the moment the model is deliberately minimal and only really represents the beginnings of support for physical and electronic monographs, I think I need to improve the clarity of this in the document. This minimalism is motivated by the desire to elicit feedback from the community to drive the creation / evolution of the model and to only model what we need for our current requirements whilst being careful not to back ourselves into a corner.
I envisage the model evolving to support serials fairly soon and other resource types over time (I don’t feel confident I could model them at the moment), this might include archival collections. Much of this evolution will be driven by the broader analysis/UX process, the priorities of the Bibliographic Metadata and Resource Management SIGs and the development of other modules.
It might be possible to consider the commonalities of e-books and e-journals, and then add in the elements that are more complex or unique to each (e.g., coverage data for e-journals). E-journals will represent the more complicated use case (but you already know that!). For management purposes, libraries will also want to track their perpetual access entitlements versus their access entitlements, which many times are different.
The current model is a first attempt to express potential commonalities between e-books and physical books, in part because the roadmap driving this means we intend to soon connect to an external knowledge base (which will most likely have information about electronic resources) and the desire to also focus on being able to migrate (part of) an existing inventory (which involves physical resources). I suspect both physical and electronic journals will follow after that and that will drive the modelling of those common aspects.
I have had a variety of conversations about how we might model aspects of a resource which vary by type and material (and probably other characteristics), I’m not yet confident to be able to express a generalised model that supports that.
Licensing (which, to me, perpetual access falls under) is a context that we haven’t really started to model yet (though I have had some thoughts following the conversations during the RM group meetings). I don’t know if that will fall under the core knowledge base / metadata development efforts or not, though at the very least it will need to link to resources within it.
I believe there is a balance to be struck here (and I am still learning what that is) between developing a system that can been used sooner rather than later in a limited fashion and in creating a model which allows for continual evolution with as little disruption to other FOLIO modules in the future.