LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2015

BIBFRAME February 2015

Subject:

Re: 2-tier BIBFRAME

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:04:11 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (53 lines)

On 2/2/15 7:31 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> I think BIBFRAME tries to cover too much even in the Linked Data
> layer. For example, taxonomies and categorization are not specific to
> bibliographic data and are already covered by established vocabularies
> such as SKOS. I don't see why they should also be included in BF,
> unless they were added in support for MARC, in which case it is bad
> design.
>
> BIBFRAME should be the glue between different Linked Data vocabularies
> relevant to bibliographic data, and not a blanket to cover them all.

Yes, that's an argument that has been made here, but to no avail.

Here's another option that I see: Create links between MARC records and
related RDF triples without transforming the whole MARC record to RDF.
Begin slowly, and only add linkable data with specific goals in mind.

Much of what is in library/archive data has little or no value for
linking -- for searching, yes, for display, yes, but for linking, no.
It's become something of a cliche' to say that the MARC record is
primarily a mark-up of a textual description of the resource. Had it
been created in 1995 instead of 1965 the record would have been an XML
and/or HTML document. Very few of the fields/subfields in MARC are
actionable in any way except as they are bundled into a record-wide
keyword search.

We could start by identifying *linkable data* and adding that to our
data store, much like OCLC has added schema.org data to its MARC-based
online displays. This data could live in relation to the MARC record
without the necessity to transform the text of current library
cataloging into RDF (which I think isn't a good fit).

After working with this linkable data for a while, I think that people
will better understand the "document vs linked data" concept. I also
think that it will be easier to begin to transform our data because
we'll have an idea of what functionality we are wanting to support. At
the moment, it seems that we are transforming our data to RDF just for
the purpose of making it RDF. BIBFRAME, as currently conceived, will
provide few if any advantages over MARC because linking to web resources
is not one of the functions being considered. There are no BIBFRAME use
cases [1] that are about linking to resources, and many people complain
that BIBFRAME appears to be a huge change with no provable gain.

kc
[1] The use cases document seems to be have removed or at least unlinked
from the BF site, otherwise I would link to it here.

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1502&L=BIBFRAME&D=0&F=P&O=A&P=10476
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-16
51439
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:R3KIUPCHWATLUTZWZYHNPZZBHIQEIHFK
<urn:uuid:65e8e472-e15d-4521-b697-c391f1f140e0>
2020-04-05T16:36:29Z
140.147.55.47
text/html
sha1:Q2YAVX5QD6S4A4HY2JE47MOJH7Q5FTKM
<urn:uuid:0d51d729-c5b3-41ea-9c1d-927edb36fd17>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1502&L=BIBFRAME&D=0&F=P&O=A&P=10476
response
<urn:uuid:df5960c4-96be-4176-bc87-d4d155b323c3>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-16
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-116.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/