On 13 September 2011 15:03, Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I agree in principle with Rob. However, I think Level0 could be a
useful for a couple reasons:

* Level0 could be a common vocabulary for folks who want to pour
extant MARC data into an RDF triplestore, so that they can then use
SPARQL and inferencing to massage the data into another more
expressive vocabulary, like RDA, FRBR, etc. People who primarily use
relational, xml or nosql databases probably won't care about this too
much...but that doesn't mean RDF triplestore users won't does it?

This kind of temporary conversion to allow exploration of the data is a good use of RDF and SPARQL and something we do regularly with data we are working with. It doesn't need a published vocabulary though, it just needs the explorer to convert using a made-up vocab to suit their exploration. There's no value in standardising for this use-case IMHO.
 

* Converting MARC to Level0 RDF could establish URIs for the
bibliographic items that are being described. RDF triples are
statements about a subject resource, which is identified with a URI.
So Level0 would necessarily have to hang RDF assertions off of a URI.
This might seem like a small thing, but it actually would be quite a
significant improvement in the current state of affairs, where our
bibliographic resources lack an identity on the Web. This assumes that
HTTP URIs were used of course :-)

It would be nice if it had that effect, but I don't think it does. The resulting RDF resource would be for the MARC record, not for the bibliographic resource it describes. It is the MARC record that has a 245$b not the book. We also have to remember that the marc record describes many different things, all of which need to be identified and described.

If you want to mint URIs for your bibliographic resources then there are simpler approaches already covered by DC.
 
As Rob correctly points out, the big danger here is that people
convert their MARC to Level0 so that they can check the Linked Data
box on some RFP; and that all the work that has gone into higher level
vocabularies (by some of the same people as who created Level0 I might
add) is ignored.

Absolutely. Whatever niche value this Level 0 vocab has it is way less than the cost of people thinking this is the right way to publish bibliographic data onto the web.
 

//Ed

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Rob Styles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.
> However...
> 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
> vendors.
> 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
> appealing.
> 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]> wrote:
>>
>> 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)
>> [http://marc21rdf.info/] . 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 [
>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/ ] 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 [
>> http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5468 ]) 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 [
>> http://conference.ifla.org/sites/default/files/files/papers/ifla77/187-dunsire-en.pdf
>> ].
>>
>> 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
> Rob Styles
> +44 (0) 7971 475 257
> http://consulting.talis.com/
>
>
>



--
rob

Rob Styles
+44 (0) 7971 475 257
http://consulting.talis.com/