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

Voß, Jakob Jakob.Voss at gbv.de
Wed Apr 24 22:05:57 CEST 2013

Philipp Zumstein wrote:

> I see three different aspects for "holding":
> 1) general holding information

That's what a holding ontology should aim at.

> 2) service portfolio

See http://gbv.github.io/dso (which is based on 

> 3) current status
> Examples for 3) are: available/not available, on the loan, stolen, not
> on the shelf, loan possible at the moment?.

I use to model the current status as simple boolean relation between a 
holding and a service. Either a holding is currently available for a 
specific service or it is unavailable. This includes your examples
"available/not available" and "loan possible at the moment". The
other examples "on the loan, stolen, not on the shelf" better belong
to the general holding information.

> Examples for 1) are call number, location on a shelf, bill number,
> acquisition date, corresponding title, and "owner" of an item.

Thanks for putting quotes around "owner". There can be many different 
kinds of relations between a holding and an agent (organization or 

* a library stores the holding in their stacks
* another institution legally owns the holdings
* a patron has a holding on loan at home
* a theft has a stolen holding

> 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).

So the concept of ownership is misleading for definition of holdings.
The idea of "providing a service" looks more promising. However, as 
I wrote in my last mail, a definition of holding is less relevant than 
a definition of holding properties and relations.


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