Thanks Rebecca,

When you say "apply for a source code" are you talking about the MARC 
Code List part IV? 

Thanks, but I don't think our homegrown local vocabularies are "big 
time" enough to be listed there - they would probably not be useful for 
anyone but us.  That's why I thought to include the institution symbol 
in the authority "identifier".

The registry sounds like something different.  Have I got the right picture?

I just discovered (somehow missed the announcement) that subfield 0 
(Authority record control number) has been added to the 6xx fields in 
MARC21).  However, this doesn't sound appropriate for a URI for the 
whole vocabulary. 

Clay has given me some idea of what to do in MODS to identify the 
vocabulary (and link to the term record, very interesting), but I'm not 
sure about MARC.  Trying to envision URIs in subfield 2...

However, this is the MODS list so I guess I shouldn't expect MARC advice!


Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> An easier thing to do (for now) as we are working on the registry (which
> will also work in MARC), is to just apply for a source code to name your
> vocabulary/thesaurus. Just send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
> details-- name of the thesaurus and URI and any publication details if
> applicable. Then a code is assigned and it could be used in $2 and in the
> MODS authority attribute. As we continue to develop the registry that Clay
> mentioned we will provide URIs for the source codes as well as values
> within any controlled lists that LC is maintaining. And we plan to discuss
> the inclusion of URIs in MARC for controlled values as part of the MARC
> Advisory Committee discussions at ALA to accommodate RDA, the new
> cataloging rules.
> Rebecca
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Clay Redding wrote:
>> Hi Laura,
>> Good timing.  I'm working on a registry driven by SKOS [1] that will feature resolvable URIs for values (or Concept labels, as I call them) commonly found in existing LC schemas, such as PREMIS, MODS and MARCXML.  MARC too, of course.  One of the goals is to then allow new values to be placed into the registry for possible inclusion into any relevant schemas.  In theory these schemas could be then dynamically generated at request time with the relevant values that exist in the registry, but that has yet to be decided by those here in the NetDev office or the various boards that guide our schemas.  It will be possible to register values in the registry but not have the affect the XML Schema outputs, though.
>> The registry will also have numerous other outputs for each value, including MADS, many flavors of RDF, etc.  I'll likely have some query endpoints up for it too, for SPARQLs and XQueries.
>> You're right, that then in a MODS instance, you'll need a convention to get at the values in the registry.  The values will either be built into the schema, or you'll have to use something like @xlink:href to process the URI, and an XInclude/XPointer/XQuery or the like to generate the proper text node for your <genre>.  Also, in theory, the @authority values could use the URI for the SKOS ConceptScheme that contains the Concept label of interest.  
>> e.g. (these won't resolve for another couple of weeks):
>> <genre authority="" xlink:href="" xlink:title="A la poupe? prints"><!-- Your XML tools should generate "A la poupe? prints from TGMII id#tgm000006 --></genre>
>> Clay
>>>>> Laura Akerman <[log in to unmask]> 07/16/08 6:15 PM >>>
>> I'm looking at how to set up one or more local (and idiosyncratic) 
>> vocabularies that could be high-level subject or "genre" (best element 
>> that fits) vocabularies, to describe special groupings we would want 
>> (some guessed at examples,  "yellow-back collection" "pamphlets by 
>> African American authors" "art history web resources").  These might be 
>> for internal use or public (e.g. website naviation of collections).
>> We'd like to be able to identify which local vocabularies we're using in 
>> our MODS and MARC records.  In MARC, the specification says to use a 
>> term from the MARC Code list in subfield 2; the only one available to us 
>> is "local".  The MODS guidelines for authority attribute for both 
>> subject and genre suggest using the MARC Code lists but don't prescribe it.
>> We'd like to go beyond "local" so we can code more than one local 
>> vocabulary. 
>> Am thinking  about inventing a convention, something like , e.g., 
>> <mods:genre authority="local GEU projectvocab">  to assign our own 
>> abbreviation or label for a local vocabulary.  
>> Has anyone else felt the need to do something like this, or tried it... 
>> do you think this strategy would work, see any problems with it, or have 
>> suggestions for an alternative strategy?
>> Beyond my immediate need: would a change in either the conventions for 
>> use of the MARC codes for genre or subject, or the data structure to 
>> permit identifying institution and local vocabulary code, be a good thing?
>> Thanks in advance for advice,
>> Laura
>> -- 
>> Laura Akerman, Technology and Metadata Librarian
>> Robert W. Woodruff Library, Room 128
>> Emory University
>> Atlanta, Ga. 30322
>> ph:  (404) 727-6888  / email:  [log in to unmask]

Laura Akerman, Technology and Metadata Librarian
Robert W. Woodruff Library, Room 128
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga. 30322
ph:  (404) 727-6888  / email:  [log in to unmask]