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