Print

Print


On 4/16/14, 11:05 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
>> you could do:
>>
>> <temporal
>> authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</te
mporal>
> -- I'm not sure you can.
>
>> That assumes that "authorityURI" refers to the actual authority
>> property, not a generic URI for an authority vocabulary.

> --  I do not believe this use of authorityURI was the /intent/,
> though I admit I'm trying to figure out if the definition of
> "authorityURI" [1] technically precludes it.  I do think it does.
> The authorityURI is meant to "uniquely identifying the /vocabulary
> from which the controlled term has been selected/" (emphasis added).
> While valueURI is meant to be the URI of the concept, authorityURI is
> meant to be a URI identifying from which scheme the concept came.
> This is how all the examples present this [2].  It is not meant to
> uniquely identify a URI associated with an RDF property.

Hmmm. Perhaps that makes sense in an XML world, but if we're talking 
about URIs then the URI for the value doesn't need a URI for the 
vocabulary in an RDF-ish world. So having a URI for the authoritative 
vocabulary makes sense if the value is a literal, but the URI for the 
vocabulary is redundant if you have a URI for a value. My guess is that 
at one point MODS had authorityURI being used only with literals, and 
then added valueURI when value URIs became available, and didn't rethink 
how different it is to have literal values and valueURIs.

<subject authority="lcsh" 
authorityURI="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects" 
valueURI="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2010115993.html">

It's odd, but I guess it made sense to someone at some time.

>
> If you think in conversion terms, then using it in this way would
> inject a pretty big unknown.
>
> This (the expected way):
>
> <topic authorityURI="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects">Press
> and politics</topic>
>
> would more or less mean this:
>
> <skos:Concept> <skos:prefLabel>Press and politics</skos:prefLabel>
> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects"
> /> </skos:Concept>

But that's using a literal. I think the problem here is with the 
interaction between authorityURI and valueURI. With literals it makes 
sense. But the combination of URIs does seem unnecessary in instance data.

But that's just my take on it. And it still doesn't answer the original 
question, which is how to code something like:

<temporal authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary"
valueURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</temporal>

which in fact is trying to introduce a new data element (#buildDate) 
that takes a literal value. This appears to require a new namespace so 
that a new data element (property) can be introduced.

kc

>
>
> While by this:
>
> <temporal
> authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</temporal>
>
>  you would really mean this:
>
> <rdf:Description
> xmlns:unsw="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#">
> <unsw:builtDate>1968</unsw:builtDate> </rdf:Description>
>
> Very different interpretations without a way to effectively
> communicate such a difference at the data level.
>
> Yours, Kevin
>
> [1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/subject.html [2]
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-guidance.html
>
>
> -- Kevin Ford Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library
> of Congress Washington, DC
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Metadata Object Description Schema
>> List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent:
>> Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:26 AM To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [MODS] Use of authorityURI and valueURI at lower
>> level elements
>>
>> I believe that Terence is right. Instead of:
>>
>> <temporal authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary"
>> valueURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</tempo
>>
>>
ral>
>>
>> you could do:
>>
>> <temporal
>> authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</te
>>
>>
mporal>
>>
>>
>> In this case, your value is a literal string (which dates are), not
>> a selection from a list of terms that each have a URI.
>>
>> That assumes that "authorityURI" refers to the actual authority
>> property, not a generic URI for an authority vocabulary.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 4/16/14, 7:58 AM, Terence H. Catapano wrote:
>>> Alyson,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure the valueUri attribute is being used as intended in
>>> your example.
>>>
>>> According to the change document for MODS 3.4
>>> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/changes-3-4.html), the
>>> valueUri attribute is defined as:
>>>
>>> "A URI uniquely identifying the term or controlled value, as
>>> assigned by the body responsible for the maintenance of the
>>> vocabulary."
>>>
>>> In your example the valueUri is being used to uniquely identify
>>> the *type* or subclass of temporal term being used, not to
>>> uniquely identify the value/term itself.
>>>
>>> I confess I don't know where you could include the
>>> typing/subclassing information. The documentation on
>>> authorityUri/valueUri is sparse, so maybe others can comment on
>>> the intended usage of the attributes.
>>>
>>> /Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Alyson Dalby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to create a MODS framework for a collection of
>>>> photos of ships, and I'm hoping that the user community can
>>>> help me with the use of the authorityURI and valueURI
>>>> attributes.
>>>>
>>>> The photos can contain multiple ships, each of which has
>>>> several descriptive elements. To achieve this we're mapping
>>>> along the following lines:
>>>>
>>>> Ship 1: <subject> <name></name> <genre></genre>
>>>> <occupation></occupation> <temporal></temporal> </subject>
>>>>
>>>> Ship 2: <subject> <name></name> <genre></genre>
>>>> <occupation></occupation> <temporal></temporal> </subject>
>>>>
>>>> This seems fairly straightforward. Where things get complex is
>>>> in the temporal element.
>>>>
>>>> Each ship has three dates associated with it - the build date,
>>>> commissioned date and the decommissioned date. As there is no
>>>> display label attribute in the temporal sub-element, we're
>>>> looking at using authorityURI and valueURI. In this case, the
>>>> authority is us (my library) and the values are "built date",
>>>> "commissioned date" and "decommissioned date".
>>>>
>>>> This would look like:
>>>>
>>>> <subject> <temporal
>>>> authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary"
>>>>
>> valueURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#builtDate">1968</tempo
>>
>>
ral>
>>>>
>>>> <temporal authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary"
>>>>
>> valueURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#commissionedDate">196
>>
>>
9</temp
>>>>
>>>> oral> <temporal
>>>> authorityURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary"
>>>>
>> valueURI="http://library.unsw.edu.au/vocabulary#decommissionedDate">1
>>
>>
980</te
>>>>
>>>> mporal> </subject>
>>>>
>>>> The questions we have are: 1. Can authorityURI and valueURI be
>>>> specified at the lower sub-element? The examples we found all
>>>> have it at the top level element. 2. If one specifies the
>>>> valueURI, are we right in thinking that one still needs the
>>>> actual element value between the tags? (In the example above,
>>>> that would be the "1968" bit.) 3. Is this a correct use of the
>>>> authorityURI and valueURI attributes? Have we done anything
>>>> wrong with this mapping?
>>>>
>>>> We've been pouring over the guidelines and we're still unsure
>>>> of the answers to these questions. I hope someone in the
>>>> community can help us out!
>>>>
>>>> Alyson Dalby Library Repository Services, UNSW Australia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Terry Catapano Special Collections Analyst/Librarian Columbia
>>> University Libraries Digital Program 212-854-9942
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>
>> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m:
>> 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
>

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