I'm interested in RDF because of Cyc. Who else is following Cycorp's work, and the real utility of RDF and the Semantic Web to Cyc?
M. Andrews
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wed 5/23/2007 6:12 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_BIBLIO.TU-BS.DE>
>Sure, and I do think I understand that much. The theory is wonderful.
>But my question was, where is it demonstrated (after 10 years) that the
>potential is more than a theoretical one? What we learn about Talis
>still doesn't make that abundantly clear. An answer would need to be
>such that it at once grips you by its crispness and clarity so you can
>have no doubt it can sweep MARC away.
I'm no expert on RDF, but I'm not sure here if we're talking about the metadata standard or the records that we create, and I don't know how much of the structure of one has to be carried over to the other. I CAN, however, easily explain (I think) why MARC (that is, Z39.2) is no longer sufficient to our needs. There are many areas in the MARC format where no expansion of fields or subfields is possible, and other areas where the lack of expansion has caused MARC to have some serious inconsistencies.
As an example, the 77x fields for related works attempt to replicate the entire bibliographic description in a single field. But there are not enough subfields to keep the same granularity of data elements, so what will be a 1XX field with multiple subfields in the bibliographic record for the related item becomes a single $a subfield in the 1XX field. Ditto the title, the publisher statement, etc. This makes actual linking between the 7XX field and the bib record for the same item problematic, and also balls up the indexing of the 77X data.
Another example is that there was a desire at one point to allow the placement of a URL in any MARC field, but it turned out that some fields have NO subfields left to add that capability.
So if nothing else, we need to move to a format that doesn't keep us from adding to our metadata record. That doesn't mean it has to be RDF. AS a matter of fact, I proposed an "intermediate" XML format to LoC at one point -- one that would be able to carry current MARC records but would also allow us to add data elements that are not in MARC21 today. It would allow a lossless transformation from MARC21 to this new format, and a lossy but coherent transformation from the new format to MARC21. I proposed it as a compromise -- a way to get the library community to gradually move over to a non-MARC format, where not everyone would have to make the move at the same time. I'm not sure that's the way to go, but it might allay some of the fears that people have about changing. Unfortunately, there was no uptake to my idea.
kc
Karen Coyle - on the Road
kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 05:27:28 EDT