LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  December 2010

MODS December 2010

Subject:

Re: madsrdf: Question about subject

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:38:47 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (147 lines)

"the owl definitions do not include the various rules (such as those in LCSH)  
that govern how simpleTypes can be used in combination with other  
simpleTypes, nor about which simpleTypes can legitimately be used in  
bibliographic headings as simpleTypes, uncombined with any others."

Correct.  These rules are not in the ontology. 


"Is there any intention to include such rules in the RDF of authority data?"

Maybe yes, maybe no.  The question that has been in my mind recently is whether such rules - those that pertain to LCSH, but only LCSH, for example - should be their own ontology or, alternatively, what would we need to do to accommodate those rules in MADS/RDF (and would they be re-usable across a broad spectrum of other authority construction rules).  The particulars regarding ComplexSubject construction are currently beyond the scope of MADS/RDF.


"Is there any intention to identify certain Classes as being, for  
example, free-floating subdivisions? For example, in id.loc.gov, this  
entry: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476
is defined as a "chronological subdivision"."

Yes.  At this time, we envision collecting all "chronological subdivisions" in a MADSCollection, which will be part of the LCSH MADSScheme.  Not only would you be able to see that a particular Authority was part of a collection, but you can also query for all the members of said collection.  Below is the MADS/RDF (truncated) of the above example:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<Authority rdf:about="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476" xmlns="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/mads/2010/11#">
 	<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/mads/2010/11#Temporal"/>
 	<authoritativeLabel>20th century</authoritativeLabel>
 	<elementList rdf:parseType="Collection">
 	 	<TemporalElement>
 	 	 	<elementValue>20th century</elementValue>
 	 	</TemporalElement>
 	</elementList>
 	<isMemberOfMADSCollection rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/collection_TemporalSubdivisions"/>
 	<isMemberOfMADSScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities"/>
</Authority
</rdf:RDF>

You'll see that this Authority isMemberOfMADSCollection collection_TemporalSubdivisions.  (Don't bother following the collection URI, it doesn't exist.)


Is this more or less what you're looking for?

Best,

Kevin


________________________________________
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] madsrdf: Question about subject

Thanks, Kevin. That does answer my question. So, wording it in my own
terms (in hopes that someone else understands it in this way), the owl
definitions do not include the various rules (such as those in LCSH)
that govern how simpleTypes can be used in combination with other
simpleTypes, nor about which simpleTypes can legitimately be used in
bibliographic headings as simpleTypes, uncombined with any others.

Is there any intention to include such rules in the RDF of authority
data? Is there any intention to identify certain Classes as being, for
example, free-floating subdivisions? For example, in id.loc.gov, this
entry:
    http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476
is defined as a "chronological subdivision". The fact of it being
named "subdivision" I presume is significant. Will that information be
available in the madsrdf?

kc

Quoting "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Karen,
>
> I agree with Simon - let's not use "properties" in this instance and
> instead use "Classes" or "types."
>
> You asked: "In the case in which a subject heading consists of only
> one "subfield" (which is the same element that exists in a simple
> property), is a complexSubject created for this singlet?"
>
> In short, no.  Whether enforced in the ontology at this time (or
> whether it is enforceable in the first place), a SimpleType - such
> as Topic, Geographic, Temporal - can be used as a standalone subject
> heading.  A ComplexSubject type is, to use a slightly different
> semantic label, essentially a pre-coordinated heading.  To reword
> the documentation ever so slightly:
>
> ComplexSubject, HierarchicalGeographic, and NameTitle types, all of
> which are ComplexType types, are designed to handle records that are
> the aggregation of two or more SimpleType records.
>
> A NameTitle, for example, is used when the first component is a Name
> type and a following component is a Title type.  But, if you had a
> Topic type followed by a Temporal Type, the aggregation of those two
> terms (the resulting pre-coordinated heading) would be a
> ComplexSubject, because it is composed of two SimpleType types
> (Topic and Temporal) *and* it does not meet the necessary conditions
> to be a NameTitle (or HierarchicalGeographic).
>
> Does this help?  If not, I may be misunderstanding what you mean by
> "simple properties."
>
> Cordially,
>
> Kevin
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 18:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [MODS] madsrdf: Question about subject
>
> Hi. I've read through the madsrdf document and tried to find the
> answer to this among the examples, but didn't succeed. So apologies if
> I missed something obvious.
>
> There are simple properties like Topic or Geographic, then there are
> complex subjects that are made up of combinations of simple
> properties. In the case in which a subject heading consists of only
> one "subfield" (which is the same element that exists in a simple
> property), is a complexSubject created for this singlet?
>
> The thrust of the question revolves around distinguishing a simple
> property from an actual subject heading, given that not all simple
> properties can be used as subject headings. Or am I misunderstanding
> things?
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>



--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
November 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager