LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME 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

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2015

BIBFRAME January 2015

Subject:

Re: 2-tier BIBFRAME

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:30:31 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

On 1/30/15 4:51 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Karen,
>
> lets call those specifications BM (BIBFRAME MARC) and BLD (BIBFRAME
> Linked Data).
>
> What I meant is two different levels of abstractions, each with its
> own vocabulary and semantics. And a mapping between the two, for which
> SPARQL would be really convenient.
>
> In the 2-tier approach, these are the main tasks:
> 1. convert MARC data to RDF at the syntax level (BM)
> 2. design semantically correct bibliographic Linked Data structure (BLD)
> 3. define a mapping from BM to BLD
It's the accuracy of #3 that I'm not sure about. The concepts are so 
very different, that it isn't clear to me what the result of your 
mapping would be. That's where experimentation would be interesting. 
Note that I began an analysis of the semantics of MARC  data (not just 
the structure) at one point.[1] It was supposed to be a step toward 
understanding what data is actually in the MARC record, regardless of 
how it is encoded there. That could help, IMO.
>
> So in that sense I don't think it is similar to profiles, as profiles
> deal with a subset of properties, but they still come from the same
> vocabulary.
As defined by Dublin Core [2], profiles can make use of a mixture of 
vocabularies. I see this as an advantage. You could mix and match 
information from a MARC/RDF and a BIB/RDF ontology. However, wouldn't it 
be the case that for some future resources there would be only the 
BIB/RDF and no MARC/RDF? If that is so then the MARC/RDF is something 
that would eventually cease to be current, and therefore would not be 
useful in an ongoing sense?

kc
[1] http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5468
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/


>
> A somewhat similar approach is W3C work on relational databases:
> 1. direct mapping to RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/
> 2. customizable declarative mapping to RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
>
>
> Martynas
> graphityhq.com
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Martynas,
>>
>> I agree that the requirement to accommodate legacy MARC is a hindrance to
>> the development of a more forward-looking RDF vocabulary. I think that your
>> suggest of using SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries is not unlike the concepts of
>> selected views or application profiles -- where you work with different
>> subsets of a fuller data store, based on need.
>>
>> I wonder, however, how an RDF model designed "from scratch" would interact
>> with a model designed to replicate MARC. I know that people find this to be
>> way too far out there, but I honestly don't see how we'll get to "real" RDF
>> if we hang on not only to MARC but to the cataloging rules we have today
>> (including RDA). We'd have to start creating natively RDF data, and until we
>> understand what that means without burdening ourselves with pre-RDF
>> cataloging concepts, it's hard to know what that means.
>>
>> All that to say that I would love to see a test implementation of your idea!
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/15 9:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> after following discussions and developments in the BIBFRAME space, it
>> seems to me that it tries to be too many things for too many people.
>>
>> I think many of the problems stem from the fact that (to my
>> understanding) BIBFRAME is supposed to accommodate legacy MARC data
>> and be the next-generation solution for bibliographic Linked Data.
>> Attempting to address both cases, it fails to address either of them
>> well.
>>
>> In my opinion, a possible solution could be to have 2 tiers of RDF
>> vocabularies:
>> - a lower-level one that precisely captures the semantics of MARC
>> - a higher-level one that is designed from scratch for bibliographic Linked
>> Data
>>
>> The conversion between the two (or at least from the lower to the
>> higher level) could be expressed simply as SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Martynas
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 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
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
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