Dan Mullineux wrote:
> Rob.
>
>>From my reading of Martha's work, I think the biggest difference is that
> we are trying to address the 'entities' in the marc data as being
> unique-ish global resources, whereas, and I admit I have not consumed
> all Martha's documents, it appears most predicates in Martha's schemas
> are literals, in much the same way that Ian Davis' lossless marc to rdf
> transliteration was.
Exactly the case. So it would be interesting to create a workable
mash-up between Martha's view, which is very semantically rich but
reproduces the traditional cataloging-as-text, and a more "entity"-based
view, which defines global resources. To do this, of course, we need to
have the key elements of our data defined elsewhere on the Web,
preferably in a registry. I'm wondering if we couldn't create registry
stubs somewhere -- that is, create a registry entry just for the group
without adding all of the entries -- and use that in the development of
the schema. That would save time and allow us to model the schema fairly
quickly.
In the work that we are planning relating to RDA and RDF, we have
identified something like 45 or 50 inline vocabularies in RDA, and I
don't know how many classes and properties (since we haven't done that
work yet). This is based on the RDA rules, much as Martha's work is
based on her rules. I think that the actual RDF may be much reduced as
we explore the nature of different fields in the cataloging rules.
I am interested in discussing all of these schemas in greater depth, and
am trying to figure out a way to do so on the futurelib wiki
(http://futurelib.pbwiki.com). The difficulty, of course is that any
actual schema is very large and hard to take in in one gulp. Also,
Martha's schema now is a single file, so there isn't a way to point to
individual classes or properties. I'll keep messing around with that. If
you want to watch my attempts, I'm starting at
http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/YeeRDF. Right now it's mostly an empty page,
but I'll be trying out various things over the course of the next few
days. Any suggestions are welcome!
kc
>
> The obvious difference, is our work is still undocumented, and nothing
> like as rich in domain detail, yet.
>
> Dan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Styles
> Sent: 03 December 2007 10:26
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FW: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules for a
> more FRBR-ized catalog, with an RDF model
>
> Martha,
>
> No I hadn't seen this, it's useful work. Great examples in there. I'd
> love to see some example RDF based on the rules - that might clarify
> some of Karen's questions.
>
> Dan posted a query to the list before, to let you guys see what our data
> looks like, here's the tinyurl version (that works)...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xpxdc
>
> Karen, Martha, How does that compare with what you were thinking?
>
> rob
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 17:44, Martha Yee wrote:
>
>> Have either of you looked at the RDF model at my web site
>> (http://myee.bol.ucla.edu) yet? Unless I am misunderstanding you, I
>> believe these rules and this RDF model are trying to do what you are
>> asking us to do... The question for me is whether our current
>> deprofessionalized staffing is capable of implementing such a complex
>> set of rules and such a complex model...
>>
>> Martha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]On Behalf Of Riley, Jenn
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:14 AM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules for a more
>> FRBR-ized catalog, with an RDF model
>>
>>
>>> Martha Yee wrote:
>>>> I have written elsewhere about the fact that our rules and our
>>> cataloging
>>>> data are already considerably FRBR-ized and that what is lacking for
>>> the
>>>> creation of true FRBR-ized catalogs is adequate software support.
>>> Martha, you and I have discussed this at length, so you know that I
>>> disagree that the problem lies with systems. It is true that
>>> bibliographic records are very rich and contain a lot of important
>>> data.
>>> However, as long as bib data continues to be expressed as text
>>> strings that require human interpretation, systems will NOT be able
>>> to make use of the underlying concepts. This is one of the great
>>> errors in the RDA drafts that we have seen: the bibliographic
>>> description continues to be textual in nature, with relationships
>>> left as implicit in that text. We need rules that can make explicit
>>> what today is implicit. And we need a bibliographic record carrier
>>> that can carry those explicit expressions.
>> Surely, now, the problem is to some degree both with the data and the
>> systems. There is a great deal more systems could do with our existing
>
>> data, but our current data structures also in some cases make it
>> significantly more difficult than it should be (and sometimes
>> impossible) for systems to do more advanced things imagined by this
>> group.
>>
>> I see much of the current debate about why our catalogs don't function
>
>> better as finger-pointing -- "if only *they* (some group other than
>> mine)
>> would do it better..." I think to move forward we need to accept that
>> all of us have something to contribute, and take responsibility for
>> making that contribution. I have every hope that the work that has
>> been done to improve systems will demonstrate some of the
>> possibilities, and in turn both inspire more innovative system
>> development and expose areas in which our data could be
>> better-structured in order to enable more robust discovery and use
>> services.
>>
>> Jenn
>>
>>
>> ========================
>> Jenn Riley
>> Metadata Librarian
>> Digital Library Program
>> Indiana University - Bloomington
>> Wells Library W501
>> (812) 856-5759
>> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>
>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 09:32:37 EST