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
On 1/30/15 9:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
[log in to unmask]"
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
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.