 |
 |
On 1/30/15 6:58 PM, Tim Thompson wrote: > Karen, > > Aren't the semantics behind MARC just the semantics of card catalogs > and ISBD > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Bibliographic_Description>, > with its nine areas of bibliographic description? ISBD has already > been published by IFLA as a linked data vocabulary > (http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/25.html)--although > <http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/25.html%29--although>, > sadly, they left out the punctuation ;-) > > Tim The semantics of MARC are funky because of the way that things like indicators interact with subfields in fields, etc. Take a look at my analysis and you'll understand. MARC goes way beyond ISBD -- by far. Note also that ISBD is deeply flawed. ISBD has its nine areas of description. Each area begins with ". -" Not all nine areas are required therefore you can have: .- area 1 .- area 3 .- area 9 or .- area 1 .- area 2 .- area 4 What a machine sees is: .- area? .- area? .- area? From a data processing point of view, this is not helpful. There may be a way to determine which area you have, but the model does not clearly distinguish them. Human eyes and brains are needed. kc > > -- > Tim A. Thompson > Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty) > Princeton University Library > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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. :-) > > Jeff > > > > > On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Martynas Jusevičius > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/ > > 2. customizable declarative mapping to RDF: > http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/ > > > > > > Martynas > > graphityhq.com <http://graphityhq.com> > > > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net > >> m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234> > >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600> > > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600