Colleagues
With reference to the status of RDA relationship indicators (and other
vocabularies in the Open Metadata Registry):
The statuses "New-proposed" and "Published" should be interpreted as these
labels indicate: the former is for elements or concepts that are new and
merely proposed, implying that further change to definitions, etc. may
occur; the latter is for elements or concepts that have been published by
the vocabulary maintainers, implying that they are stable and safe to use.
OMR has recently added general definitions to the statuses to help with this
interpretation.
There is an email discussion thread (Life-cycle statuses for RDF
vocabularies) on these statuses and their interpretation on the listserv of
the DCMI Vocabulary Management Community [1] - further comments are still
very much welcome.
The current RDA vocabularies for relationships and roles in the OMR are
based on an early draft of RDA, and all are therefore in "New-proposed"
status. Changes to the underlying appendices on relationship designators in
the RDA Toolkit have, indeed, occurred since that early draft, and the OMR
versions are now out-of-synch. However, the recent meeting of the Joint
Steering Committee for Development of RDA in Chicago discussed a paper on
the RDF representation of the designators [2]. Note that this paper touches
on the interpretation of the designators as relationships (represented as
RDF properties) and as qualifiers to "headings" (represented as RDF/SKOS
concepts). Formal outcomes of the meeting, including this discussion, will
be published shortly; meantime, the blog of the American Library Association
representative to JSC gives a good indication [3].
JSC now expects to make good progress in moving the OMR designator
vocabularies to "Published" status, by carrying out some of the
recommendations in the discussion paper and updating the vocabularies to
synchronise them with the RDA Toolkit. Until this happens, the designator
labels and definitions in the current Toolkit are the master versions, and
it is unsafe to use the OMR versions.
Hope this helps!
Cheers
Gordon
[1]
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1211&L=DC-VOCABULARY&X=169
2096BDAA8364E2E#3
[2] http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-rep-2.pdf
[3]
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxa16/blogs/resource_description_and_access_ala_
rep_notes/2012/11/report-of-the-meeting-of-the-joint-steering-committee-6-no
vember-2012.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert
Sent: 30 November 2012 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME relationship indicators & coding
J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mark said:
>
>>There is no such designator in RDA. It's "composer (expression),"
>>which I believe you export to your clients as simply "composer".
>
> It is in the registry:
>
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/2209.html
...
> It is also in the version of RDA to which I have access at 18.5.1.3:
>
> "For Example:
> film producer
> film director
> actor
> composer of music for sound film"
>
...
> Perhaps you looked in the wrong list?
No, I looked in the correct list--the current version of RDA's Appendix I.
The "composer of music for sound film" designation appeared in the November
2008 draft of RDA, but it was wiped out with a number of other terms to form
the current Appendix I list first pushed out with the initial June 2010
publication of RDA. The examples in Chapter 18 were revised too.
I see that term is still classed as "new-proposed" at the Metadata Registry.
Don't know if that means anything in this context.
> One list in alphabetic order
> would be much easier, perhaps coded for use with one or more of WEMI?
I've already made a single alphabetical list with WEMI labels, to use as a
cheat-sheet.
>>If the intent is to use URIs to describe relationships currently
>>depicted by our current use of MARC relator codes ...
>
> The URIs lead to terms in English. The $4 MARC codes can be exported
> in any language.
The RDA relationship designators and other controlled terms are also
"codes." They're given as English words in the text, but can be represented
using URIs that can point to multiple language labels for the same concept.
For instance, a number of the RDA terms at the Metadata Registry are
available in both English and German, e.g.,
<http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/374.html>. Though
pointing at the same thing via a URI, an English catalog can be set up to
display the English label, and the German catalog set up to display the
German label. Or perhaps even set up to prefer certain words over others in
a particular language.
To your point about id.loc.gov, maybe LC and/or another group can work to
develop sanctioned translation-synonyms for the MARC relator and other
codes.
> So much of RDA and Bibframe is Anglocentric.
Can't speak to the BIBFRAME since the coding part hasn't come up yet aside
from references to or examples in RDF/XML and Turtle.
But RDA? Yes, it is Anglocentric, certainly with regard to its
vocabularies--it's directed at an English-speaking audience. Will those
vocabularies still be Anglocentric when RDA gets translated into Spanish?
And German? And French?
Furthermore, will the RDA term "maps" *mean* the same thing with each
language? Likely. Will that term be *represented* in the same way in each
translation and in their respective bib records and catalogs?
Likely no. English "maps" = German "Karten" = French "cartes". Using
potentially the same URI. But we're still a long way from making this
happen in a typical library catalog.
> I wonder if our Quebec,
> European, and Asian clients would accept Bibframe XML markup in
> English?
Are they reading the mark-up? Or is the computer reading the mark-up and
presenting it in a familiar form on the screen? Compare reading "raw" MARC
to reading formatted MARC. Or reading HTML code versus viewing the content
of a web page.
If it's an issue, XML isn't limited to tags containing roman characters.
Not sure about Turtle or other methods of markup.
> They would certainaly not accept English inclusions in records for non
> English resources.
Understandable. It interferes with the parts of the record that should be
read by the public--the spelled out bits. But do they balk at the
quasi-English MARC codes "lat" and "ger" and "fre" and "eng", for instance?
--
Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
Coordinator University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library
Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
|
