LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  June 2012

BIBFRAME June 2012

Subject:

Re: Latest brilliant idea (fwd)

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:09:14 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

Bernard,

One thing that I would like to see clarified in the LC work is what it 
means to "replace MARC." I'm assuming that the goal is not to create a 
set of triples that replicate the fields, subfields, indicators and 
fixed fields of MARC, but instead to make sure that all of the 
*information* (I guess I could say "useful information") in MARC can 
move forward to this new data format. In my opinion ([1], [2]) this 
means more than just creating a one-to-one of MARC in RDF; it means 
converting the *intention* of the data to a new metadata model. So where 
in MARC we might have had text strings representing a related work (and 
perhaps an record number in $w), in a new model that might be a triple 
that represents the specific relationship between the focus resource 
(the thing being described or cataloged) and the resource it relates to.

As I've said before, RDF is not just another serialization of our data, 
like coding MARC in MARCXML - it really is a new way of thinking about 
our data, and it has possibilities we haven't had before. I see no 
possibility of enhancing MARC to achieve this. The example of the $0 is 
essentially proof of how that would *not* work, and you can find the 
arguments in the MARBI discussions of that subfield. (The gist is that 
there are many MARC fields that are not one-to-one with an entity, and 
MARC does not have a way to associate a subfield with particular other 
subfields.)

The big question here is whether LC and its partners will decide that 
this new framework must not only accept the information once carried in 
MARC but must be able to round-trip with MARC records. That, I think, 
would be a hindrance to moving forward.

and, p.s. Everything that Ed said. And here's the SW work that is 
designed to support the vision he provides:

"Named graphs" http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/

and p.p.s. Agree with Simon on inappropriate tone of original post.

kc

[1] Coyle, "MARC21 as data; a start" 
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5468
[2] http://futurelib.pbworks.com/w/page/29114548/MARC%20elements

On 6/4/12 12:29 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> 04.06.2012 04:21, Simon Spero:
>>
>> Eric Miller <http://zepheira.com/about/people/eric-miller/> "[...] is
>> co-founder and president of Zepheira [...] Previously, Eric was a [...]
>> Research Scientist at OCLC in Dublin, Ohio".   I believe that 8 years at
>> OCLC is a sufficient period of time to allow one to gain some
>> familiarity with libraries.
>
> The LC press release does indeed say:
> A major goal of BFTI is to replace the MARC 21 exchange format with a
> new Linked Data model ...
>
> I just wonder if this is even conceptually possible. More precisely:
> Can a MARC record be replaced by a set of Linked Data triples? How could
> the data exchange then actually work? Exchange, up until now, is based
> on records. So what would replace them - or is the new idea and the
> intention now to make the very concept of the bibliographic record
> obsolete? What does that mean for ILSs that used to receive MARC 
> records? What will it mean for the processes of cataloging and the
> catalogers' user interface?
> OK, there may be features of MARC that need not be dealt with since
> they are obsolete or useless in other ways. Yet, would leaving these out
> make triplification any easier?
>
> But the LC statement, I think, may also be read as calling for an
> addition or enhancement for MARC, not its wholesale replacement.
> For the press release statement goes on to say
>
> ... while retaining as much as possible the robust and beneficial
> aspects of the historical format.
> See
>   http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/modeling-052212.html
>
> And this will indeed - if I'm not entirely misinformed - not be
> possible with the Linked Data concept and triplestores alone.
>
> What one might envision is something like this:
>
> 1. In regular MARC records, add something like the subfield $0 or $w
>    to those fields that need to be linked to authority records or
>    other bib records, each containing a URI  XYZ.
>
> 2. Set up a central triplestore for the authority data allowing to be
>    queried for XYZ to yield the information necessary to enhance the
>    MARC record at that particular point, say, with information about
>    the person or subject heading.
>
> 3. OPACs may then use that remote triplestore to enhance their
>    record displays without the need to restructure their MARC records
>    into an entirely new way, except adding those URIs or constructing
>    them from existing data on demand.
>
> B.Eversberg

-- 
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

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 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
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager