 |
 |
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