Hi Jonathan,

Karen is absolutely right about the need for application profiles, but in
this case the Metadata Registry is intended to also help with creating and
maintaining recombinant value vocabs -- you should minimally be able to
create a vocabulary that meets your needs, assign URIs, and map it[1] to
other vocabularies without creating an AP. The rub being, as Karen points
out, that the other vocabularies need to have URIs for this to work, and
it's handy if they're maintained in the registry too.

Since we generate both a skos representation and a simple XML schema,
consumers of the vocabulary you create don't necessarily need to be working
in systems that support linked data either.

I know this doesn't really help you find an existing vocabulary that
precisely meets your requirements, but it might help you define one at some
point. If it doesn't, I'd be very interested in discussing that further.

Jon Phipps
...who is ususally more successful at resisting the opportunity to promote
the registry.


On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This discussion is  like the poster child for why we need to be able to
> create application profiles -- every list mentioned here has a point of view
> (MARC:library cataloging; AAT:holdings as objects; ONIX:product catalog).
> You should be able to cherry pick the terms you want and declare it YOUR
> list (or the OpenURL list). Of the lists, the ONIX list 7 looks closest to
> what I think you are needing. Now, it would be great if the elements in ONIX
> list 7 were in the metadata registry and had URIs for the terms. That way,
> you could use the ones you want and everyone would know what you were using
> because it would be clearly identified.
> kc
> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>> Thanks, that's interesting too.
>> One of the most useful lists I've found is actually in ONIX, Code List 7.
>> Although Code List 7 actually needs to be supplemented by Code List 78 if
>> you want full detail. (Like whether a VHS tape is NTSC or PAL; or the fact
>> that a printed book is in Braille (US or UK? Can specify either, hooray.)).
>> The ONIX list is a pretty good and complete list of physical formats for
>> published items, and appears to be free, and is available in XML as well.
>> It does become an awfully LONG list.  And is still not entirely
>> intellectually consistent---the article Diane pointed to in D-Lib is the
>> result of trying to harmonize this with library practices in an
>> intellectually consistent way, but it becomes something so abstract that
>> it's kind of hard to deal with, and also leaves many vocabularies
>> unspecified.  I think a more or less flat list with specified vocabulary,
>> even if not entirely intellectually consistent, that corresponds to the
>> universe of actually existing published items, is probably more useful.
>> Jonathan
>> Chris Beer wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> As Esha said, PBCore might be worth looking at. It's probably one of the
>>> more complete lists. If you want something more formal than the PBCore list,
>>> the EBU also has a good  vocabulary in an XML format (
>>> The nice
>>> thing about the EBU list is that some of their term definitions might help
>>> identify more obscure materials.
>>>> Have you looked at PBCore? It's a metadata standard developed by the
>>>>  Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is used for tv and other  multi
>>>> media cataloging.
>>>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>>>> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for  'format'
>>>>>> or 'carrier' for multimedia materials?  I'm thinking of  things like "CD",
>>>>>> "DVD", "digital", etc.
>>>>>> The closest I can get is from RDA at (thanks Karen and Diane), but  it seems
>>>>>> _really_ insufficient. As far as I can tell "audio disc"  is used for both a
>>>>>> CD and a vinyl disc, and there's nothing  available there for "DVD" at all.
>>>>>>   Or for "digital". Although  I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess
>>>>>> CD and DVD are  both digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a
>>>>>>  digital file on a computer network free of particular carrier. I  guess
>>>>>> that wouldn't be in a carrier vocabulary at all, after all,  that would be
>>>>>> sort of a null carrier. Phew, this stuff does get  complicated quick. Which
>>>>>> I guess is why nobody's worked out a  good one yet.
>>>>>> Too bad RDA's is so _far_ from good though. Any others anyone  knows
>>>>>> about?
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>> Chris
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask]
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------