 |
 |
Colleagues With reference to the status of RDA relationship indicators (and other vocabularies in the Open Metadata Registry): The statuses "New-proposed" and "Published" should be interpreted as these labels indicate: the former is for elements or concepts that are new and merely proposed, implying that further change to definitions, etc. may occur; the latter is for elements or concepts that have been published by the vocabulary maintainers, implying that they are stable and safe to use. OMR has recently added general definitions to the statuses to help with this interpretation. There is an email discussion thread (Life-cycle statuses for RDF vocabularies) on these statuses and their interpretation on the listserv of the DCMI Vocabulary Management Community [1] - further comments are still very much welcome. The current RDA vocabularies for relationships and roles in the OMR are based on an early draft of RDA, and all are therefore in "New-proposed" status. Changes to the underlying appendices on relationship designators in the RDA Toolkit have, indeed, occurred since that early draft, and the OMR versions are now out-of-synch. However, the recent meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA in Chicago discussed a paper on the RDF representation of the designators [2]. Note that this paper touches on the interpretation of the designators as relationships (represented as RDF properties) and as qualifiers to "headings" (represented as RDF/SKOS concepts). Formal outcomes of the meeting, including this discussion, will be published shortly; meantime, the blog of the American Library Association representative to JSC gives a good indication [3]. JSC now expects to make good progress in moving the OMR designator vocabularies to "Published" status, by carrying out some of the recommendations in the discussion paper and updating the vocabularies to synchronise them with the RDA Toolkit. Until this happens, the designator labels and definitions in the current Toolkit are the master versions, and it is unsafe to use the OMR versions. Hope this helps! Cheers Gordon [1] https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1211&L=DC-VOCABULARY&X=169 2096BDAA8364E2E#3 [2] http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-rep-2.pdf [3] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxa16/blogs/resource_description_and_access_ala_ rep_notes/2012/11/report-of-the-meeting-of-the-joint-steering-committee-6-no vember-2012.html -----Original Message----- From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert Sent: 30 November 2012 09:16 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME relationship indicators & coding J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Mark said: > >>There is no such designator in RDA. It's "composer (expression)," >>which I believe you export to your clients as simply "composer". > > It is in the registry: > > http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/2209.html ... > It is also in the version of RDA to which I have access at 18.5.1.3: > > "For Example: > film producer > film director > actor > composer of music for sound film" > ... > Perhaps you looked in the wrong list? No, I looked in the correct list--the current version of RDA's Appendix I. The "composer of music for sound film" designation appeared in the November 2008 draft of RDA, but it was wiped out with a number of other terms to form the current Appendix I list first pushed out with the initial June 2010 publication of RDA. The examples in Chapter 18 were revised too. I see that term is still classed as "new-proposed" at the Metadata Registry. Don't know if that means anything in this context. > One list in alphabetic order > would be much easier, perhaps coded for use with one or more of WEMI? I've already made a single alphabetical list with WEMI labels, to use as a cheat-sheet. >>If the intent is to use URIs to describe relationships currently >>depicted by our current use of MARC relator codes ... > > The URIs lead to terms in English. The $4 MARC codes can be exported > in any language. The RDA relationship designators and other controlled terms are also "codes." They're given as English words in the text, but can be represented using URIs that can point to multiple language labels for the same concept. For instance, a number of the RDA terms at the Metadata Registry are available in both English and German, e.g., <http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/374.html>. Though pointing at the same thing via a URI, an English catalog can be set up to display the English label, and the German catalog set up to display the German label. Or perhaps even set up to prefer certain words over others in a particular language. To your point about id.loc.gov, maybe LC and/or another group can work to develop sanctioned translation-synonyms for the MARC relator and other codes. > So much of RDA and Bibframe is Anglocentric. Can't speak to the BIBFRAME since the coding part hasn't come up yet aside from references to or examples in RDF/XML and Turtle. But RDA? Yes, it is Anglocentric, certainly with regard to its vocabularies--it's directed at an English-speaking audience. Will those vocabularies still be Anglocentric when RDA gets translated into Spanish? And German? And French? Furthermore, will the RDA term "maps" *mean* the same thing with each language? Likely. Will that term be *represented* in the same way in each translation and in their respective bib records and catalogs? Likely no. English "maps" = German "Karten" = French "cartes". Using potentially the same URI. But we're still a long way from making this happen in a typical library catalog. > I wonder if our Quebec, > European, and Asian clients would accept Bibframe XML markup in > English? Are they reading the mark-up? Or is the computer reading the mark-up and presenting it in a familiar form on the screen? Compare reading "raw" MARC to reading formatted MARC. Or reading HTML code versus viewing the content of a web page. If it's an issue, XML isn't limited to tags containing roman characters. Not sure about Turtle or other methods of markup. > They would certainaly not accept English inclusions in records for non > English resources. Understandable. It interferes with the parts of the record that should be read by the public--the spelled out bits. But do they balk at the quasi-English MARC codes "lat" and "ger" and "fre" and "eng", for instance? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Coordinator University of Minnesota Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>