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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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