On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Rob Styles <[log in to unmask]
> Hi Gordon and others at MMA.
> First of all can I say how great it is to have still more folk looking at
> the potential of RDF and Linked Data for libraries.
> Levels 1 and up sound like they might be a really interesting contribution
> to the debate.
> Many people at Talis, Library of Congress, Dublin Core and throughout the
> Linked Data community have worked hard to discuss approaches to representing
> bibliographic data that will benefit libraries and their participation in
> the wider web. Much of this effort has been contributed altruistically and
> great strides have been made with several national libraries and some
> Several years ago the library community had the opportunity to publish data
> in XML for the XML community. The result was MARC XML. Unfortunately,
> because the translation from MARC was one-to-one many in the library
> community bought into it and other more useful XML representations have all
> but died as a result.
> Your Level 0 risks the same. At a time where the library community needs to
> understand the meaning in their data and let go of a language (2XX etc) that
> came from the computing constraints of the late '60s the vocabulary you have
> published is not helpful. It provides a simple cop-out to understanding, and
> doing, something genuinely useful.
> I grant you, it has a use-case. Round-tripping between MARC and Linked Data
> will be something that many people will ask for, yet very few will actually
> need. We risk that people who don't know better will convert MARC to this
> vocabulary and think they have data that the Linked Data community will find
> This Level 0 vocabulary has the potential to lead people down an unhelpful
> cul-de-sac and take time, effort and understanding away from genuinely
> useful work such as that from LoC, BL and DC.
> I beg you — for the sake of libraries everywhere — delete it and never speak
> of it again!
> Rob Styles
> Senior Technical Consultant
> On 13 September 2011 09:10, [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]
>> Elements of MARC21 bibliographic standard represented in Resource
>> Description Framework by Metadata Management Associates
>> Metadata Management Associates (MMA) is pleased to announce a new resource
>> for the library community: The MMA version of MARC 21 elements and
>> vocabularies in RDF, hosted by the Open Metadata Registry (OMR)
] . Given the need for libraries to move beyond the
>> MARC standard, and the desire for increased innovation as we move toward a
>> successor, we felt this was a good time to make this data available to all.
>> The MMA version of MARC 21 in RDF has been exclusively developed by Metadata
>> Management Associates, and has not, as yet, been shared with the Library of
>> Congress, although the announcements on MARC [
] made it even more desirable to move in
>> this direction.
>> So why did we spend the time to do this, given the intention to leave MARC
>> behind? Most importantly, we want to make it easier for innovators to
>> ‘play’ with this data, and to have URIs to use when they do so. We
>> ourselves want to include MARC21 elements in our research into semantic
>> mapping between bibliographic namespaces, and to inform proposed work on
>> representing UNIMARC in RDF. We also want to provide inspiration for those
>> eager to experiment with the issues around the transition from MARC 21 to
>> the new environment of RDA and other bibliographic standards, and trust that
>> the reassurance that it WILL happen--and is not rocket science--will help
>> everyone interested in participating in that future.
>> What you see in the OMR now is what we’re calling ‘Level0’, the most basic
>> loss-less way to transition MARC 21 data into the Resource Description
>> Framework (RDF). It does not reflect the layers we think ought to be added
>> on top:
>> Level1 may contain properties that gather sub-properties with similar
>> semantics from Level0.
>> Level2 may contain properties and classes that represent aggregated
>> statements composed of sub-properties from Level0 and Level1.
>> Level3+ can contain properties and classes that represent broader-level
>> semantics and provide equivalence mappings to other namespaces for
>> bibliographic metadata, such as Dublin Core terms, ISBD, and RDA.
>> Special thanks to Karen Coyle, whose work on the analysis of MARC 21 (most
>> recently seen in a Code4Lib Journal [
]) inspired us greatly and whose
>> questions pushed us in some important directions. Karen’s insights and ideas
>> will be far more visible in Level1 and subsequent levels, when we build on
>> the basics.
>> This initiative is also intended to inform the proposal to develop an RDF
>> representation of MARC 21’s cousin, UNIMARC, presented at IFLA this year [
>> Please note that not all MARC21 elements are currently represented in the
>> OMR. Some of the lesser-used tags in 00X-8XX have not yet been registered,
>> and we are still looking into 76X-78X Linking entry fields.
>> We welcome feedback on this effort. Information on errors and specific
>> issues is best communicated via the “FEEDBACK” links on all OMR pages.
>> We’re happy to participate in discussions on the DCMI/RDA Task Group
>> discussion list [ [log in to unmask]
], or anywhere else--just be sure we
>> know that you’ve posted something, and we’ll respond.
>> Those of you headed for the DC-2011 conference are likely to see us
>> presenting information on our new mapping initiative, and demonstrating how
>> the MARC21 data in RDF supports useful mapping from MARC21 to RDA. We’ll
>> post slides and links after that conference.
>> Metadata Management Associates
>> Diane Hillmann
>> Jon Phipps
>> Gordon Dunsire
> Rob Styles
> +44 (0) 7971 475 257