Print

Print


Francis, I'm not sure I can arrive at any conclusions from this, as the 
details are hard to follow, but I am grateful for having seen this 
sentence in the document (section 2.4 on RDA Core requirements):

"A further factor, sometimes described as the, “cascading vortex of 
horror”, is the complex interplay of core requirements."

kc

On 8/6/14, 5:10 AM, Lapka, Francis wrote:
>
> Those interested in this thread should read the discussion paper just 
> posted by the British Library representative to the JSC:
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-rep-1.pdf
>
> Abstract:  This discussion paper reviews the aggregate elements: RDA 
> 2.7 Production Statement; 2.8 Publication Statement; 2.9 Distribution 
> Statement; 2.10 Manufacture Statement. It discusses options to 
> simplify RDA, extend the underlying model and satisfy FRBR user tasks. 
> It considers implications for RDA, FRBR, ISBD and MARC 21.
>
> Francis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 12:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [Radical] Transcribed and Controlled Data - as 
> a process
>
> Another thought on this:
>
> We should consider that the transition from 19th century style library 
> cataloging to [whatever the future will bring] could be incremental. A 
> solution like HTML+RDFa is a single step in a multi-step process.
>
> Knowing that more steps will take place means that we don't have to 
> solve all of the problems today.
>
> OCLC's use of schema.org does not attempt to translate the entire 
> bibliographic record to RDF. It picks the low-hanging fruit 
> (controlled headings, some, but not all, identifiers) and makes them 
> available for linking. It essentially extracts what it can from MARC 
> to RDFa.
>
> Eventually, the balance between text and actionable data could shift, 
> but it doesn't have to do so all at once.
>
> Could BIBFRAME take a similar approach? I'm not sure what it would 
> look like, but if I can wax metaphorically, I see something like the 
> egg with a chick and a yolk. As the chick grows, the yolk is consumed 
> and grows smaller.
>
> Alternatively, this could all mean that I haven't had my breakfast 
> yet. ;-)
>
> kc
>
> On 8/1/14, 9:18 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Dear all,
>
> >
>
> > In my experience, RDF and Linked Data can do both presentation based
>
> > information (eg here is content to present directly to the user,
>
> > without semantics eg [1]) and it can do semantic, descriptive
>
> > information (here is a rich description of the resource, say a book or
>
> > annotation eg [2]) but both at once is very challenging without simply
>
> > repeating everything in a for-machines way and a for-humans way as per
>
> > the current titleStatement, providerStatement, and one assumes
>
> > authorStatement, subjectStatement, etc.
>
> >
>
> > Here are two radical ideas, for which the boat has probably long since
>
> > sailed, but I'll throw them out there regardless.
>
> >
>
> > 1. Don't try to mix them up.  Have two completely separate
>
> > descriptions, where one is intended for humans to read, and the other
>
> > is intended for machines to reason upon and search.  A machine will
>
> > only ever throw a transcribed string through to the user, so make it
>
> > easy for them to do that by separating the non-semantic information
>
> > from the semantic information, with links between them.
>
> >
>
> > 2.  Mix them up using the appropriate technology: HTML + RDFA.
>
> >  Instead of thinking about triples for everything, instead create the
>
> > HTML that you want the user to see.  Then annotate that HTML with RDFA
>
> > properties to add the semantics into the record (and really a record
>
> > now, not a graph).  This way there's only one record to maintain that
>
> > has both, but uses presentation technology for presenting things to
>
> > users, and semantic technology for enabling machines to understand the
>
> > information.
>
> >
>
> > Basically -- use the right tools for the job.  RDF has a hard time
>
> > representing transcriptions outside of non-semantic strings because it
>
> > was never intended to do that. Order in RDF is a complete pain,
>
> > because a graph is inherently unordered, but there are very real use
>
> > cases that require order.  On the other hand, RDF is fantastic for
>
> > controlled data as that is precisely its intended usage.  We should
>
> > make the most appropriate use of the tools that we have available to
>
> > us, rather than treating everything as a nail.
>
> >
>
> > Best,
>
> >
>
> > Rob
>
> >
>
> > [1].  The IIIF Presentation API is focused on this approach of giving
>
> > information intended for a client to display, while still being useful
>
> > linked data by referencing existing semantic descriptions and
>
> > following REST and JSON-LD. http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.0/
>
> > [2].  The Open Annotation work is a rich data model that provides
>
> > semantics for web annotation, but says almost nothing about
>
> > presentation. http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Rob Sanderson
>
> > Technology Collaboration Facilitator
>
> > Digital Library Systems and Services
>
> > Stanford, CA 94305
>
> --
>
> Karen Coyle
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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