Print

Print


Martynas,

I agree that the requirement to accommodate legacy MARC is a hindrance 
to the development of a more forward-looking RDF vocabulary. I think 
that your suggest of using SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries is not unlike the 
concepts of selected views or application profiles -- where you work 
with different subsets of a fuller data store, based on need.

I wonder, however, how an RDF model designed "from scratch" would 
interact with a model designed to replicate MARC. I know that people 
find this to be way too far out there, but I honestly don't see how 
we'll get to "real" RDF if we hang on not only to MARC but to the 
cataloging rules we have today (including RDA). We'd have to start 
creating natively RDF data, and until we understand what that means 
without burdening ourselves with pre-RDF cataloging concepts, it's hard 
to know what that means.

All that to say that I would love to see a test implementation of your 
idea!

kc

On 1/30/15 9:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> Hey,
>
> after following discussions and developments in the BIBFRAME space, it
> seems to me that it tries to be too many things for too many people.
>
> I think many of the problems stem from the fact that (to my
> understanding) BIBFRAME is supposed to accommodate legacy MARC data
> and be the next-generation solution for bibliographic Linked Data.
> Attempting to address both cases, it fails to address either of them
> well.
>
> In my opinion, a possible solution could be to have 2 tiers of RDF vocabularies:
> - a lower-level one that precisely captures the semantics of MARC
> - a higher-level one that is designed from scratch for bibliographic Linked Data
>
> The conversion between the two (or at least from the lower to the
> higher level) could be expressed simply as SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Martynas

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600