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

A somewhat similar approach is W3C work on relational databases:
1. direct mapping to RDF:
2. customizable declarative mapping to RDF:


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