 |
 |
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, sadly, they left out the punctuation ;-) Tim -- 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]> 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]> > 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 > > > >> 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] http://kcoyle.net > >> m: +1-510-435-8234 > >> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >