 |
 |
Ross Singer wrote: > > 3) What, specifically, is missing from DCTerms that would make a MODS > ontology needed? What, specifically, is missing from Bibliontology or > MusicOntology or FOAF or SKOS, etc. that justifies a new and, in many > places, overlapping vocabulary? Would time be better spent trying to > improve the existing vocabularies? > MARC: 182 fields, 1711 subfields, 2401 fixed field values DC: 59 properties Look at the sample records in MARCXML and DC at http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml and you will see how lossy it is. Now, you could argue that no one needs all of the detail in MARC, and I'm sure it could be reduced down to something more rational, plus there is redundancy in it, but for pity's sake, DC doesn't have a way to indicate the EDITION of a work. FOAF has both *surname* and *family name* and says: "These are not current stable or consistent..." No sh*t. And try to clearly code a name like "Pope John Paul II" in FOAF. Oh, and death dates. No death dates in FOAF because you wouldn't have DEAD FRIENDS. But authors die. Best if I stop there. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------