Print

Print


SKOS has a "hiddenLabel" property. There is also SKOS-XL to consider.

http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#hiddenLabel
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html#hiddenLabel

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:28 PM, "Thomas Berger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Joerg,
> 
>> The character '@' appears also in german WorldCat data as a filing indicator
>> described in german catalog code RAK-WB § 822, so I assume it propagated to
>> other german catalogs that deliver bibliographic data on international level.
>> Example:  al- @Matḥaf al-Miṣrī <al-Qāhira> in
>> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/179936500
> 
> RAK § 822 is located in section 9. something of the rules, dealing with
> collation (filing rules). In this section the words to be omitted are
> visualized by enclosing them in ¬...¬ (not signs), from my understanding
> this is purely illustrative, these signs must never be shown on the
> display / printed card.
> 
> BTW § 822 in < http://d-nb.info/986402338/34 > connects to RAK WB § 203,3
> which actually prescribes the insertion of an artificial blank into
> "L'aurore" or "al-Matḥaf al-Miṣrī" if the articles fall under non-filing
> rules. [This is probably to give cataloguers better opportunity to mark
> the first filing character on the printed card by soft pencil as was(?)
> common practice]
> 
> RAK never acknowledged the possibility of storing catalogue information on
> other media than paper, therefore any markup (e.g. using "@" or "¬" to
> signify something) apart from ISBD punctuation and RAK-variations thereof
> always is completely out of scope for this cataloging code.
> 
> On the other hand the german data exchange standard MAB2 in its general
> section defines non-filing characters and declares them to enclose the
> strings to be omitted, excluding trailing blanks, this yields ("¬...¬"
> still a visualization, actually start and end characters have two distinct
> codes): "¬L'¬ aurore" or "¬al-¬ Matḥaf al-Miṣrī". The artificial blanks
> are demanded by the cataloging code and the data exchange standard does
> not stand up to remedy this.
> 
> The MAB non-sort characters are quite universally valid for any field
> (whenever somebody has the desire to sort differently from the data
> entered) and especially they occur in almost every field of the group 3XX
> (titles, statement of responsibility and the like). The individual field
> definitions only mention them if some extra meaning is superimposed, for
> instance for 331 (title proper) text in nonfiling charactes may be followed
> by space plus text for filing in brackets as in "¬99¬ [ninety-nine] red
> balloons".
> 
> As for the "@" this is a PICA-ism, cataloguers in the ILTIS system of the
> DNB mark the first sort position in a field by this character. In theory
> that character (and the "/" marking the last position in personal names
> relevant for sorting as in "Goethe, Johann Wolfgang /von") should never
> leak out of their system, but since cataloguers on one hand actively enter
> the character whenever they find it appropriate and export interfaces on
> the other hand have to explictly transcode the situation into the syntax
> of the target format, it was already for MAB2 data not uncommon to contain
> sometimes @'s where non-sort characters probably were intended.
> 
> 
>> Some 15 years ago, there had been a discussion about the most preferred
>> mechanism for indicating non-filing zones in MARC21. This document discusses the
>> introduction: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1998/98-16r.html  The result was,
>> two invisible control characters were assigned a new meaning. The invisibility
>> of the control characters did not disturb card printing or screen display.
>> Later, in MODS, a visible <nonSort> XML element was introduced. The reason was,
>> XML did not allow invisible control characters.
> 
> Fact is, XML 1.0 (!) does not allow control characters in the range 0x00-0x1f
> except for TAB, CR, and LF (eg. subfield characters are forbidden and have
> to be dealt with by other means). The control charcters for non-filing are in
> the range 0x80-0x9F and perfectly legal in XML (1.0) documents.
> 
> MAB-XML transforms the control charaters into an XML element <ns>. I think
> this is completely natural since XML is all about markup and not marking up
> by XML means a contiguous character sequence wich has to be marked up anyway
> would be quite silly (TEI does but this is since it codes the logical structure
> and the visual nature of a document it has to resort to kind of "markers" for
> the latter in order not to conflict with XML nesting rules for elements).
> 
> RDF graphs are not very well suited to reflect text with markup, although
> our prevalent case of "texts with one optional *initial* substring with
> one special meaning" should not be too hard to deal with. I think the
> situation is analoguous to unqualified Dublin Core, anyhow it should be
> clear that solutions which are the "proper XML way" of encoding things
> often are quite opposite to "proper RDF ways".
> 
> Non-sort characters are used to mark instances of the concept of non-filing
> zones as introduced by the cataloging code in actual data. For MAB2 these
> characters have always been part of the exchange standard's syntax, not
> different from end-of-field or end-of-record markers. We also have cases
> where a special syntax is specifically defined by the cataloging code and
> the data format acts "transparently", i.e. it just transports it. The most
> prominent example for this is the use of the comma (",") in the notation
> of personal names: "Adams, Henry" (invert for everyday usage for most regions
> outside the Alps) or "Mao, Zedong" (simply omit the "," to obtain everyday
> usage). For a full-featured conversion from MAB2 or MARC21 data into MODS
> or RDF in these cases one has to peek into the data, extending the analysis
> from the format syntax onto the additional syntax layer specified by the
> cataloging code the field contents are conforming to.
> 
> People who not yet have realized that non-sort characters were incorporated
> into the MARC standard in late 2000(?) might think of non-sort characters as
> a peculiarity of the cataloging rules reigning the record in question
> and therefore should always "transparently" dumped/piped into whatever format
> MARC21 is exported to. But I think they are wrong since MARC has adopted the
> concept, incorporated the syntax and therefore one has to deal with it.
> 
> 
>> What can we learn? In the punchcard age, it was enough to define two invisible
>> control characters to assign a new notion of "non-sorting" to interpret ISO2709 
>> streams in a new way. In the XML world, invisible data was no longer allowed,
>> and non-filing control became visible in markup elements.
> 
> read: became explicit by markup elements, thus obliviating special control
> characters. Since XML tags (not elements!) one does not know or does not care
> about usually are silently ignored and only textual data is displayed, this
> was very elegant and kind of progress to control characters where one could
> never be certain that some kind of software wouldn't visualize them anyway
> as control symbols, funny block characters or whatever.
> 
> 
>> Now today, in Linked Data, a semantic context should be provided, so non-filing
>> can be applied (or ignored) by programs successfully under any circumstances, if
>> it's visible or not.
> 
> Linked Data focusses on data, to some extend neglecting the convenience lying
> in the ambivalence of textual data:
> :he foaf:name "Dan Brickley" .
> is completely independent of
> :he foaf:familyName "Brickley" ;
>    foaf:givenName "Dan" .
> the former does not decompose to the latter and the latter you cannot synthesize
> to the former (no inherent order of statements, no universal rule with respect
> to inserting blanks when concatenating strings). Therefore you will always have
> to supply both forms in the cases where sorting or deeper analysis /and/ kind
> of display is needed. With any kind of titles we are in a comparable situation.
> (Worse yet: Our "Brickley, Dan" with inversion and comma does not fit in either
> of these aspects nor does our "L' aurore" with the extra space since the
> cataloging rules mandate "normalization" upon data entry and therefore even our
> "transcribed" elements often are quite distorted ...)
> 
> In library land we have a long tradition in entering all kind of important
> information twice: In normalized form as for headings and transcribed from
> the source or as note for display. "XML" gave us some promise to overcome
> that by augmenting transcriptions with clever markup, "RDF" defeats that
> again. The lesson to learn therefore is not to rely on RDF (a format) as
> a device for data entry: In our domain the concept of personal name and how
> to code it is common enough to expect tools which properly react on a ","
> typed in. And titles as transcribed elements superimposed with instructions
> for sorting are also common enough to expect tools which spare us the
> labor of duplicate entry (hey: we have a computer and a mouse and a database
> and should use that, where RDF is just plain data).
> 
> 
>> I think the non-filing indicator characters are just one case that demonstrates
>> the importance to annotate the meaning of symbols in bibliographic strings that
>> serve special semantics (there are more symbols, for example "Ordnungshilfen" =
>> filing hints, or cataloger's comments in brackets '[' and ']'). In Linked Data
>> enviroments like Bibframe, there must be also some information about the context
>> of the interpretation of the bibliographic string, that is, what are the special
>> symbols in the string, and what catalog rules should be referred to for special
>> symbol interpretation.
> 
> I strongly object. Linked Data is all about providing data /void/ of any
> buried private (arcane, domain-specific) meaning introduced by characters
> (visible or not) which do not stand for themselves.
> 
> One could define library specific RDF datatypes for those literals we know
> as "titles" or "personal names" and these even could have XML embedded. But
> this is a mechanism valid for syntax (restricting arbitrary strings to those
> with a comma or <ns> Tags at certain positions) and has nothing to do with
> semantic subdivision of these names or titles (there are no constructs allowing
> statements like "in this kind of string the character '@' has the following
> meaning: ...") and therefore are no viable solution.
> 
> viele Gruesse
> Thomas Berger
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iJwEAQECAAYFAlEgP5QACgkQYhMlmJ6W47PCmQQAqBBHgHjNlsHrchZXdI4Gqf5o
> ulZNokG8HnnkngUtFD9kYT6b5qj7reM3R7VhPHSjXDAt/WUtrAKCHh91u+xT/5D6
> bihf+ThDcIIFBZPfQF5We3mbbhIg7KLsru+5L5A4DUBc3/z2Onk0Wqs4G0VdvkLW
> NRJAT1EN3qiflULOWyg=
> =IpNG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>