On 1/30/15 6:01 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> What if it was two different vocabularies, rather than two different levels of abstraction?
> There is only one reality. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :-)
I'm afraid that I see that as a philosophical over-simplification. The 
world of the mind can be sliced and diced in incompatible ways, even if 
the laws of gravity cannot. One only has to look at how different folks 
have interpreted the concept of the "work" to see that meshing two 
different vocabularies -- or two different levels of abstraction -- can 
run into problems.

What I see us struggling with today is trying to shoe-horn data designed 
for an entirely different technical model (card catalogs) into RDF, but 
without making significant changes to the data itself or the rules we 
use to create that data. That way madness lies.


> Jeff
>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Karen,
>> lets call those specifications BM (BIBFRAME MARC) and BLD (BIBFRAME
>> Linked Data).
>> What I meant is two different levels of abstractions, each with its
>> own vocabulary and semantics. And a mapping between the two, for which
>> SPARQL would be really convenient.
>> In the 2-tier approach, these are the main tasks:
>> 1. convert MARC data to RDF at the syntax level (BM)
>> 2. design semantically correct bibliographic Linked Data structure (BLD)
>> 3. define a mapping from BM to BLD
>> So in that sense I don't think it is similar to profiles, as profiles
>> deal with a subset of properties, but they still come from the same
>> vocabulary.
>> A somewhat similar approach is W3C work on relational databases:
>> 1. direct mapping to RDF:
>> 2. customizable declarative mapping to RDF:
>> Martynas
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 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]
>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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