Print

Print


I disagree. Knowing the name of something, its type(s), and a few other
seemingly mundane clues can be enough to identify a thing in a broader
context. RDF/Linked Data is not merely a variant record format. Patterns
exist in information that extend well beyond records, even if they are
only probabilistic. Don't underestimate Hadoop.

 

Jeff

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC

 

On May 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

	
	This D2RQ thing is just a red herring. Moving to linked data is
not just a matter of taking our current data and outputting it in a
different serialization. In fact, my fear is that we will do just that
if we develop BIBFRAME as a "new version of MARC." Sure, we can write
programs to turn MARC into triples -- but that won't get us an active
place in the linked data cloud.

 

+1 - a graph full of literals isn't a tremendous improvement over, say,
marcxml.

 

-Ross.

 

	
	kc
	
	

	On 5/30/13 12:16 PM, Mitchell, Michael wrote:

		           I must have missed that most libraries don't
store their data in relational databases. I thought most of the big ILS
did by now and they would cover most libraries. That's where MARC goes
to rest in our Sirsi-Dynix system after being rendered apart. Oh well.

		           I still think a lot of the discussion is
directed to discovery relationships that are pointed the wrong way. Out
from the library rather than in.

		 

		Thanks,

		 

		Michael Mitchell

		Technical Services Librarian

		Brazosport College

		Lake Jackson, TX

		Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu

		 

		From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
		Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:56 PM
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC

		 

		The point came up earlier that most libraries don't
store their data in relational databases, so this particular tool won't
help in those cases. Somebody else argued that most relational database
are unmappable into anything useful, but I find that hard to believe.

		 

		Jeff

		 

		From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
		Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:42 PM
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC

		 

		Then why are we going through all these changes with RDA
and Bibframe? These changes have all been touted as a way to make our
data accessible to others on the Web. This is apparently what D2RQ does
so why don't we fine tune this and we are done? A goodly portion of what
I'm reading here sounds more like attempts to add sources of info
outside of our libraries (e.g. six different name authority sources)
rather than the original facilitation of others coming in to our
existing library data. We're supposed to be breaking down the silos, not
building new Googles. Seems D2RQ already breaks those silos.

		 

		Michael Mitchell

		Technical Services Librarian

		Brazosport College

		Lake Jackson, TX

		Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu

		 

		From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
		Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:44 PM
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC

		 

		If your data is a relational database, try D2RQ rather
than writing code.

		 

		http://d2rq.org/

		 

		Jeff

		 

		From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Williams
		Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:15 PM
		To: [log in to unmask]
		Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC

		 

		I have a vision of a future in 5, more likely 10, years
where I'll send my database out for <linked?> authority work and to
automagically change descriptive elements from AACR2 to RDA.  I think
this kind of system will work better for popular, not research, public
libraries.  I think that because popular public libraries have greater
turnover of material and are not preserving older material.  Still, it
won't be perfect, but part of what will drive such a decision is a
better record display from having the consistent data.  I can't see my
ILS trying to reconcile 245 $h and 336, 337, 338 to give me the same
icon for type of material, and I can't see BIBFRAME reconciling these
different MARC data elements as well.

		 

		But, first we get to see the ugly of my ILS trying to
get its SQL for MARC to line up with its SQL for BIBFRAME. Good times!

		 

		Douglas E. Williams

		Technical Services Manager

		Campbell County Public Library

		901 E 6th St.

		Newport, KY  41071

		 

		Phone:  859-572-5035, ext. 26

		Fax:  859-572-5037

		Email: [log in to unmask]

		 

		On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Simon Spero
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

		On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Trail, Nate
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

			Yes, especially since the bulk of our content at
first will be MARC, transformations from what was in MARC yesterday,
today and tomorrow will be there.

		 

		Technically, the end requirement is to provide a format
that is a credible replacement*  for MARC(21)  in an RDA context
(appendix M of the RDA Test report).  However, modeling the semantics of
the AACR2 would seem to be a necessary endeavor along the way.

		 

		The underlying (conceptual) model of the bibliographic
universe ought to be one that can be mapped to all major systems.  The
properties of these mappings are somewhat complicated. To use a recent
subject of discussion as a simple example, if one starts with MARC-21
data that contains a non standard textual string and a coded relator,
the mapping into a semantic model might not preserve the non-standard
string.  MARC-21 data using a standard string might map to the same
semantic representation.  

		Such  mapping would not be invertible, since the
non-standard string would not have been preserved. 

		 

		[I have some concerns and suggestions about some of the
work that has been done and some work that has not been done under the
BIBFRAME which I will explore under separate cover.]  

		 

		Simon

		 

		Simon

		 

	
	
	

	-- 
	Karen Coyle
	[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/> 
	ph: 1-510-540-7596
	m: 1-510-435-8234
	skype: kcoylenet