LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  April 2009

CODE4LIB April 2009

Subject:

Re: RDA in RDF, was: Something completely different

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:15:46 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

Ross Singer wrote:
> So, thanks to the help of my coworkers, here's the RDA Elements schema
> reformatted in an easier to read presentation:
> http://morph.talis.com/?data-uri[]=http%3A%2F%2Frdvocab.info%2FElements.rdf&input=&output=exhibit&callback=
>
> I have to say I feel like this schema is trying to both do way too
> much and subsequently loses the resource specificity that RDF would be
> providing.
>   

Absolutely. I think there 's a real issue that NO technology folks were 
involved in the creation of RDA. So this is "data" from a cataloger's 
perspective, and from the perspective of guidance rules for creating 
bibliographic data. I'm pretty sure that we can't create a viable data 
record using the RDA data elements, and I hate the idea that the data 
format, once again, is an afterthought rather than integral to the data 
creation standard.

> For one thing, it seems to reinvent a _lot_ of wheels.  Why does it
> define its own title property instead of using DC's? 

Because they wanted their own definition. Everything in the RDA element 
list has an RDA-specific meaning, which then makes it impossible to use 
any existing data properties. But there's more: RDA was defining RDA 
cataloging rules, not a schema or record format. Not only are there 
multiple data elements where one could do, there are things that are 
missing. For example, the FRBR "place" entity can ONLY be used as a 
subject, so it really means "place as subject". There's no general 
"place" element that could be used, for example, in place of 
publication. The latter has no relationship to FRBR place. This is a 
FRBR problem as much as an RDA problem, but again FRBR functions at a 
conceptual level and doesn't really provide a schema that one can work with.

>  By using
> properties like titleOfTheWork, dateOfWork and all of the properties
> that are specifically about TheSeries there is tremendous duplication
> of text.  If Work was its own class, you would only need say that this
> manifestation was an embodimentOf of it and reuse all of the
> title-based properties for manifestation. 

Exactly. This is what I've been saying (or trying to say) in relation to 
the bibo discussion. You should be able to use whatever properties you 
want with the FRBR classes, and not restrict data elements to a single 
class. This is a big problem in RDA, but I can say that when it was 
brought up to them (JSC) they strongly defended this choice and would 
not budge. RDA, to JSC, has a specific relationship to FRBR, and if you 
use a data element with a different FRBR class, then you are no longer 
doing RDA.

>  
> What does property 'uri' mean?
>   

Did you look at the rdf/xml? I'm wondering if it isn't the display 
that's confusing.

> I also can't figure out how people/institutions are modeled in this
> schema, since none of the elements have ranges.  Are they their own
> resources?  If so, what?  The way it looks at a glance, they're
> strings?
>   

EVERYTHING is strings at the moment, with a very very few exceptions 
(like some dates, I think). Some data elements CAN use a controlled 
vocabulary, but I believe that all of those are a mixture of 
uncontrolled and controlled strings. People and institutions are mainly 
undefined because that is in the FRAD realm. And FRAD hasn't been 
finalized. Also note that the JSC didn't feel it could do anything that 
would be too incompatible with the 'legacy' -- that is, with all of our 
AACR/MARC data.

> It seems to me that very little work was done find preexisting
> vocabularies to reuse and this schema still presents a very
> 'document-centric' or 'record-centric' view of data.
>   

Absolutely. The catalogers are still creating a textual document, not 
data. At best you can mark up the text, as we do with the MARC record. I 
worry that we won't be able to mesh the cataloger's view with a data 
view -- that the two are some how inherently opposed. I'd like to start 
modeling a new data format but I can't imagine how we can bridge the gap 
between the catalogers and the system view. I suppose a very clever 
interface could hide the data view from the catalogers, but starting 
from either AACR2 or RDA and trying to get there feels extremely 
difficult. I guess my fear is that it will require compromises, and 
those will be hard to negotiate.

kc

p.s. The RDA element analysis is at 
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-elementanalysisrev2.pdf. 
That was the input to the registry.

-- 
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------

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

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
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager