Antw: Re: [Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten] Definition and scope of Holding

Jörg Prante prante at
Wed Apr 24 12:15:31 CEST 2013

In Germany, in the vascoda effort many years ago, we have designed a
collection level description CLD scheme:

(in german)

I still remember the rejection of my suggestion to use RDF schema/OWL
in vascoda instead of ancient DC-AP technique :) but anyway...

Having Linked Data in mind, this document needs revision. But it also
shows the fact that collection level description is a moving target and
subject to local/regional library "best practice" behavior, and can not
be essential to define holdings. It should be sufficient to link a
single item entity to a collection description somewhere in the Semantic
Web if possible, and let others describe the nature of the collection.

I think what should be considered is the notion of "units" in an item
(copies or additional supplements, identified by a single item number)
and the "completeness" or physical state of an item (in german it's the
known as "Bindeeinheit": Einzelband, Teilband, Sammelband/Konvolut),
which is mentioned in MARC21 Holdings and Z39.71.

My 2 cents


>>> Owen Stephens <owen at> schrieb am 24.04.2013 um 11.31
Uhr in
Nachricht <AD61748A-A780-4055-A73D-35C425EC62A9 at>:
> Two of the definitions proposed on the wiki 
> ( include
> concept that a 'holding' can describe not just a single
resource/document but 
> a collection or group of resources/documents/items
> "Group of data elements describing one institution’s copies of a 
> bibliographic resource or group of like or similar bibliographic
> Carsten: "A description of one agents inventory and access
information for a 
> item or collection of items."
> This makes me wonder about the relation between Holdings and
> Level Descriptions. It might be worth looking at Gordon Dunsire's
work on CLD 
> Use Case for the W3C LLD incubator
> on
> Owen
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web:
> Email: owen at
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
> On 24 Apr 2013, at 08:48, Philipp Zumstein 
><philipp.zumstein at> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>> I see three different aspects for "holding":
>> 1) general holding information
>> 2) service portfolio
>> 3) current status
>> Examples for 1) are call number, location on a shelf, bill number, 
> acquisition date, corresponding title, and "owner" of an item.
>> Examples for 2) are: on spot consultation, borrow for 3 weeks with
> extension, copy/scan service, inter-library loan. Moreover, most of
> services are restricted to some persons (e.g. students, faculty,
> and they may also be restricted to a time period (e.g. duration of an

> exposition, or PDF with DRM).
>> Examples for 3) are: available/not available, on the loan, stolen,
not on 
> the shelf, loan possible at the moment?.
>> It would be nice to model all three aspects. Also it might be a
challenge to 
> give up-to-date information for aspect 3). By the way, I think with
most of the 
> "holding" definition are not perfect. For example with patron driven

> acquisition (PDA), you are not "holding" the items (you haven't
bought the 
> ebooks yet), still you provide a service to your users. Another
example is a 
> database, which you are not the owner of, but still you provide a
service to 
> your costumer (maybe for a limited time).
>> Best regards,
>> Philipp
>> Am 22.04.2013 13:14, schrieb Klee, Carsten:
>>> Hi everyone!
>>> I would like to keep the discussion ongoing. Maybe we can discuss
> definition and scope of a holding al little bit more.
>>> Just a reminder: I created a wiki page [1] about the definition of
> holding. Till now there is still one definition from the ISO 20775,
which is 
> very a library definition.
>>> I would like to suggest another one, hoping this one is more
>>> Holding: A description of one agents inventory and access
information for a 
> item or collection of items.
>>> I chose 'agent' because of foaf:Agent [2], which subsumes
> Group and Person. With 'inventory' I'm not sure, but the word
'holding' in a 
> definition of 'holding' seems to be bad. Then I chose 'item' not
> Item relates to frbr:Item [3] but I'm not totally sure about this.
>>> Now about the scope of holding. Owen Stephens asked earlier if
we're going 
> "[...] represent solely the ownership of things by a library (or
> organisation/person) or some other aspects (such as their current
> which could include 'on loan to person X')".
>>> I would like to suggest that we stick with the idea of
> Meaning: If possible and applicable move every complex aspect to
> ontology. And I think the information 'on loan to person X' is such
> aspect. But this is just my thought about this. As I said, maybe we
can come 
> to a discussion about it.
>>> Cheers!
>>> Carsten
>>> [1] <>
>>> [2] <>
>>> [3] <>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Carsten Klee
>>> Abt. Überregionale Bibliographische Dienste IIE
>>> Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz
>>> Potsdamer Straße 33
>>> 10785 Berlin
>>> Fon:  +49 30 266-43 44 02
>>> Fax:   +49 30 266-33 40 01
>>> carsten.klee at
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
>>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at
>> -- 
>> Dr. Philipp Zumstein
>> Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
>> Fachreferat Mathematik und Informatik
>> Schloss Schneckenhof West / 68131 Mannheim
>> Tel. 0621/181-3067 bzw. 3006
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at
> _______________________________________________
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at

Jörg Prante
hbz, Gruppe Portale
- Digitale Bibliothek und Online-Fernleihe -
Postfach 270451, 50510 Köln, Deutschland
Telefon +49-221-40075-156, Fax +49-221-40075-190
prante at

More information about the Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list