In my experience, you can't tell much about what you'd really want to
know for user needs from the indicators or subfield 3's, at least in my
catalog.

FRBR relationships probably don't work because the destination of an
arbitrary 856 is not neccesarily a FRBR entity, and even if it is
there's no way to know that (or what class of entity) from the data. It
really is just "generic some kind of related web page".

So "dc:relation" does sound like the right vocabulary element for
generic "related web page page", thanks. Is the value of dc:relation
_neccesarily_ a URI/URL? I hope so, because otherwise I'm not sure
dc:relation is sufficient, as I really do need something that says "some
related URL".

Thanks for the advice,

Jonathan

Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Doran, Michael D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Of course, subfield $3 values are not any kind of controlled vocabulary, so it's hard to do much with them programmatically.
>>
>
> A few years ago I analyzed the subfield 3 values in the Library of
> Congress data up at the Internet Archive [1]. Of course it's really
> simple to extract, but I just pushed it up to GitHub, mainly to share
> the results [2].
>
> I extracted all the subfield 3 values from the 12M? records, and then
> counted them up to see how often they repeated [3]. As you can see
> it's hardly controlled, but it might be worthwhile coming up with some
> simple heuristics and properties for the familiar ones: you could
> imagine dcterms:description being used for "Publisher description",
> etc.
>
> Of course the $3 in your catalog data might be different from LCs, but
> maybe we could come up with a list of common ones on a wiki somewhere,
> and publish a little vocabulary that covered the important relations?
>
> //Ed
>
> [1] http://www.archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net
> [2] http://github.com/edsu/beat
> [3] http://github.com/edsu/beat/raw/master/types.txt
>
>