My understanding of the semantic web technologies such as SKOS and OWL
is that they are quite flexible, allowing for a significant variety of
development styles. Given that, and given that the vocabularies
discussed here are used by a wide community, both libraries and vendors,
it doesn't make sense to me that this development take place as an
internal LC activity. Instead, I would prefer to see a collaborative
practice that will make these true community standards. This does not
need to slow down the development; openness can actually speed things
along, and should avoid the need for some future revisions.
kc
Sally H. McCallum wrote:
> MARBI Discussion Paper 2008-DP04 concerning RDA notes that NDMSO is working
> on the 3.1 RDA Media type, Carrier type, Content type issue. We are also
> looking into the other MARC vocabularies as we have been developing a
> registry system that would make our more complex vocabularies (e.g.,
> languages, relators, countries, GACs) and our simpler enumerated lists such
> as those found in 008 and 007 available in a structured form for reuse
> using semantic web technologies. The registry entries would be URI
> identified and retrievable via http. The information returned in response
> to a query would be in a choice of syntaxes, including SKOS (the RDF label
> vocabulary developed in the W3C for vocabulary-type lists), RDF/OWL, and
> XML. The codes and terms would all be URI accessible and machine
> actionable. We will be using the "info" namespace to identify the entities
> in the registry. The complex vocabularies should be available at least in
> SKOS by April or May for comment as the files are already in XML.
>
> One of the steps for the 007 and 008 value lists is to complete the
> valuable work begun in Appendix 2 and align the MARC values with the RDA
> values, which we are working on now. We will add the RDA/ONIX codes for
> vocabulary items into the registry, where they apply, and other related
> vocabulary terms where needed. Included in this effort will be many of the
> controlled vocabularies used in MODS. We are targeting having these ready
> before the June MARBI meetings as the mappings will be important for the
> RDA proposals.
>
> Related to this work are RDF/OWL representations and models for MODS and
> MARC, which we are also developing. Several representations of MODS in
> RDF/OWL, such as the one from the SIMILE project, have been made available
> as part of various projects and we have found they useful for our analysis
> and to inform our design process. We want to bring them together into one
> easily downloaded and maintained RDF/OWL file for use in community
> experimentation with RDF applications. Our time line is to have the MODS
> RDF ready for community comment by June.
>
> We think that the registry will be an asset in the evolution of MARC into
> future configurations that have a greater separation of MARC syntax from
> MARC data element set and look forward to working with the community on
> these developments.
>
> Sally McCallum
>
>
> ********************************************************
> Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and
> MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress
> Washington, DC 20540 USA
> [log in to unmask] (Fax: 1-202-707 0115) (Voice: 1-202-707 5119)
> ********************************************************
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|