We are working on converting some MARC library records to RDF, and looking
at how we handle links to LCSH (id.loc.gov) - and I'm looking for feedback
on how we are proposing to do this...

I'm not 100% confident about the approach, and to some extent I'm trying to
work around the nature of how LCSH interacts with RDF at the moment I
guess... but here goes - I would very much appreciate
feedback/criticism/being told why what I'm proposing is wrong:

I guess what I want to do is preserve aspects of the faceted nature of LCSH
in a useful way, give useful links back to id.loc.gov where possible, and
give access to a wide range of facets on which the data set could be
queried. Because of this I'm proposing not just expressing the whole of the
650 field as a LCSH and checking for it's existence on id.loc.gov, but also
checking for various combinations of topical term and subdivisions from the
650 field. So for any 650 field I'm proposing we should check on
id.loc.govfor labels matching:

check(650$$a) --> topical term
check(650$$b) --> topical term
check(650$$v) --> Form subdivision
check(650$$x) --> General subdivision
check(650$$y) --> Chronological subdivision
check(650$$z) --> Geographic subdivision

Then using whichever elements exist (all as topical terms):
Check(650$$a--650$$b)
Check(650$$a--650$$v)
Check(650$$a--650$$x)
Check(650$$a--650$$y)
Check(650$$a--650$$z)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$v)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$y)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$z)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$v)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$y)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$v)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$y)
Check(650$$a--650$$b--650$$x--650$$z--650$$y--650$$v)


As an example given:

650 00 $$aPopular music$$xHistory$$y20th century

We would be checking id.loc.gov for

'Popular music' as a topical term (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85088865)
'History' as a general subdivision (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh99005024
)
'20th century' as a chronological subdivision (
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2002012476)
'Popular music--History and criticism' as a topical term (
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2008109787)
'Popular music--20th century' as a topical term (not authorised)
'Popular music--History and criticism--20th century' as a topical term (not
authorised)


And expressing all matches in our RDF.

My understanding of LCSH isn't what it might be - but the ordering of terms
in the combined string checking is based on what I understand to be the
usual order - is this correct, and should we be checking for alternative
orderings?

Thanks

Owen


-- 
Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]