Aren't the semantics behind MARC just the semantics of card catalogs and ISBD, with its nine areas of bibliographic description? ISBD has already been published by IFLA as a linked data vocabulary (, sadly, they left out the punctuation ;-)


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. :-)


> 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