Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

> -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of > Richard Wallis > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:16 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 13 December 2011 22:17, Peter Noerr wrote: > I agree with Karen below that a record seems more bounded and static, > whereas a description varies according to need. And that is the distinction > I was trying to get at: that the item stored in some database is everything > unique about that ent

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Simon, You wrote: > Q: In your definition, can *descriptions *be put* * into 1:1 correspondence > with records (where a record is a atomic asserted set of propositions about > a resource)? > I do not believe so, especially when referencing back to where we started - the Marc Record. A Marc reco

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

the other terms. But I'm stuck for another one. Peter > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen > Coyle > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:23 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Names

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Yes, I realize that you were asking Richard, but I'm a bit forward, as we > know. I do NOT see a description as atomic in the sense that a record is > atomic. A record has rigid walls, a description has permeable ones. A > description always

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Simon Spero : On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: However, I think you are thinking in the right direction - I am resigning myself to just using the word 'description'. Q: In your definition, can *descriptions *be put* * into 1:1 correspondence with records (wh

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > However, I think you are thinking in the right direction - I am > resigning myself to just using the word 'description'. Q: In your definition, can *descriptions *be put* * into 1:1 correspondence with records (where a record is a atomic

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Peter, On 12 December 2011 22:11, Peter Noerr wrote: > Trying to synthesize what Karen, Richard and Simon have bombarded us with > here, leads me to conclude that linking to existing (or to be created) > external data (ontologies and representations) is a matter of: being sure > what you’re the

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

> -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen > Coyle > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 3:47 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Owen Stephens : To be provocative - has the time come for us to abandon the idea that 'libraries' act as one where cataloguing is concerned, and our metadata serves the same purpose in all contexts? (I can't decide if I'm serious about this or not!) I'm having "deep thoughts" abo

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

"Richard Wallis" wrote: > Collection of triples? Yes, no baggage there ... :) Some of us are doing this completely without a single triplet, so I'm not sure it is accurate or even politically correct. *hehe* > A classic example of only being able to describe/understand the future in > the terms

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 12 December 2011 11:16, Alexander Johannesen < alexander.johanne...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Richard Wallis" wrote: > > Your are not the only one who is looking for a better term for what is > > being created - maybe we should hold a competition to come up with one. > > A "named graph" gets thrown

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

"Richard Wallis" wrote: > Your are not the only one who is looking for a better term for what is > being created - maybe we should hold a competition to come up with one. A "named graph" gets thrown around a lot, and even though this is technically correct, it's neither nice nor sexy. In my past

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 11 December 2011 23:47, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Richard Wallis : > > > You get the impression that the BL "chose a subset of their current >> bibliographic data to expose as LD" - it was kind of the other way around. >> Having modeled the 'things' in the British National Bibliography dom

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 11 Dec 2011, at 23:30, Richard Wallis wrote: > > There is no document I am aware of, but I can point you at the blog post by > Tim Hodson [ > http://consulting.talis.com/2011/07/british-library-data-model-overview/] > who helped the BL get to grips with and start thinking Linked Data. > Anothe

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

The other issue that the 'modelling' brings (IMO) is that the model influences use - or better the other way round, the intended use and/or audience should influence the model. This raises questions for me about the value of a 'neutral' model - which is what I perceive libraries as aiming for -

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Richard Wallis : You get the impression that the BL "chose a subset of their current bibliographic data to expose as LD" - it was kind of the other way around. Having modeled the 'things' in the British National Bibliography domain (plus those in related domain vocabularis such as VIAF,

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Karen, On 11 December 2011 15:18, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Richard Wallis : > > > I agree with your sentiment here but, from what you imply at >> http://futurelib.pbworks.com/**w/page/29114548/MARC%**20elements >> , >> transforma

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Simon Spero : These issues are orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make, which is that records are collections of related assertions, and that the interrelationship between these assertions is a necessary part of their meaning. Simon Simon, I agree that there are *some* assertion

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: > On 12/11/2011 08:52 PM, Simon Spero wrote: > >> The point I was trying to make is not related to any kind of display- it >> is about how the meanings of the statements derived from a record are only >> > > The reality that library catalog re

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 12/11/2011 08:52 PM, Simon Spero wrote: The point I was trying to make is not related to any kind of display- it is about how the meanings of the statements derived from a record are only The reality that library catalog records try to "record" is the physical book, and in particular its tit

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Simon Spero : > > From a logical point of view, a bibliographic record can seen as a theory >> -that is to say a consistent set of statements. There may be >> records describing the same thing, but the theories they represent need >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Simon Spero : On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Richard Wallis wrote: *A record is a silo within a silo* * * A record within a catalogue duplicates the publisher/author/subject/etc.information stored in adjacent records describing items by the same author/publisher/etc. This comm

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Richard Wallis : I agree with your sentiment here but, from what you imply at http://futurelib.pbworks.com/w/page/29114548/MARC%20elements, transformation in to something that would be recognisable by the originators of the source Marc will be difficult - and yes ugly. The refreshing t

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 10 December 2011 13:14, Karen Coyle wrote: I don't believe that anyone is saying that we have a goal of having a > re-serialization of ISO 2709 in RDF so that we can begin to use that as our > data format. We *do* have millions of records in 2709 with cataloging based > on AACR or ISBD or othe

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Richard Wallis wrote: > *A record is a silo within a silo* > * * > A record within a catalogue duplicates the > publisher/author/subject/etc.information stored in adjacent records > describing items by the same > author/publisher/etc. This community spends much o

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Richard Wallis : Why bother? Transforming Marc in to RDF is an interesting and challenging exercise, but there is little point in doing it without having some potential benefits in mind beyond the "it would be great to have our stuff in a new format" Richard, perhaps we have been a b

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 7 December 2011 16:29, Karen Coyle wrote: > (As an aside, there is some concern that the use of FRBR will make linking > from library bibliographic data to non-library bibliographic data > difficult, if not impossible. Having had some contact with members of the > FRBR review group, they seem

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Owen Stephens : I agree this is a risk, and I suspect there is a further risk around simply the feeling of 'ownership' by the community - perhaps it is easier to feel ownership over an entire ontoloy than an 'application profile' of somekind. It maybe that mapping is the solution t

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Hi Owen - I am doing a paper on FRBR, RDF, and linked data, so this thread is very helpful for me. Can you describe the issue with musical materials in MARC and FRBR's impact on them? TIA, Laura On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Owen Stephens wrote: > That said, I believe we need absolutely to be

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

On 7 Dec 2011, at 00:38, Alexander Johannesen wrote: > Hiya, > > Karen Coyle wrote: >> I wonder how easy it will be to >> manage a metadata scheme that has cherry-picked from existing ones, so >> something like: >> >> dc:title >> bibo:chapter >> foaf:depiction > > Yes, you're right in pointing

Re: [CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Hiya, Karen Coyle wrote: > I wonder how easy it will be to > manage a metadata scheme that has cherry-picked from existing ones, so > something like: > > dc:title > bibo:chapter > foaf:depiction Yes, you're right in pointing out this as a problem. And my answer is; it's complicated. My previous

[CODE4LIB] Namespace management, was Models of MARC in RDF

Quoting Owen Stephens : This is why RDA worries me - because it (seems to?) suggest that we define a schema that stands alone from everything else and that is used by the library community. I'd prefer to see the library community adopting the best of what already exists and then enhanc