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  December 2011

CODE4LIB December 2011

Subject:

Re: Models of MARC in RDF

From:

"Fleming, Declan" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:43:22 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (227 lines)

Hi - point at it where?  We could point back to the library catalog that we harvested in the MARC to MODS to RDF process, but what if that goes away?  Why not write ourselves a 1K insurance policy that sticks with the object for its life?

D

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owen Stephens
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 8:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Models of MARC in RDF

I'd suggest that rather than shove it in a triple it might be better to point at alternative representations, including MARC if desirable (keep meaning to blog some thoughts about progressively enhanced metadata...)

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 6 Dec 2011, at 15:44, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Quoting "Fleming, Declan" <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
>> Hi - I'll note that the mapping decisions were made by our metadata 
>> services (then Cataloging) group, not by the tech folks making it all 
>> work, though we were all involved in the discussions.  One idea that 
>> came up was to do a, perhaps, lossy translation, but also stuff one 
>> triple with a text dump of the whole MARC record just in case we 
>> needed to grab some other element out we might need.  We didn't do 
>> that, but I still like the idea.  Ok, it was my idea.  ;)
> 
> I like that idea! Now that "disk space" is no longer an issue, it makes good sense to keep around the "original state" of any data that you transform, just in case you change your mind. I hadn't thought about incorporating the entire MARC record string in the transformation, but as I recall the average size of a MARC record is somewhere around 1K, which really isn't all that much by today's standards.
> 
> (As an old-timer, I remember running the entire Univ. of California 
> union catalog on 35 megabytes, something that would now be considered 
> a smallish email attachment.)
> 
> kc
> 
>> 
>> D
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Esme Cowles
>> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:22 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Models of MARC in RDF
>> 
>> I looked into this a little more closely, and it turns out it's a little more complicated than I remembered.  We built support for transforming to MODS using the MODS21slim2MODS.xsl stylesheet, but don't use that.  Instead, we use custom Java code to do the mapping.
>> 
>> I don't have a lot of public examples, but there's at least one public object which you can view the MARC from our OPAC:
>> 
>> http://roger.ucsd.edu/search/.b4827884/.b4827884/1,1,1,B/detlmarc~123
>> 4567&FF=&1,0,
>> 
>> The public display in our digital collections site:
>> 
>> http://libraries.ucsd.edu/ark:/20775/bb0648473d
>> 
>> The RDF for the MODS looks like:
>> 
>>        <mods:classification rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:authority>local</mods:authority>
>>            <rdf:value>FVLP 222-1</rdf:value>
>>        </mods:classification>
>>        <mods:identifier rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:type>ARK</mods:type>
>>            <rdf:value>http://libraries.ucsd.edu/ark:/20775/bb0648473d</rdf:value>
>>        </mods:identifier>
>>        <mods:name rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:namePart>Brown, Victor W</mods:namePart>
>>            <mods:type>personal</mods:type>
>>        </mods:name>
>>        <mods:name rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:namePart>Amateur Film Club of San Diego</mods:namePart>
>>            <mods:type>corporate</mods:type>
>>        </mods:name>
>>        <mods:originInfo rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:dateCreated>[196-]</mods:dateCreated>
>>        </mods:originInfo>
>>        <mods:originInfo rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:dateIssued>2005</mods:dateIssued>
>>            <mods:publisher>Film and Video Library, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0175 http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/fvl/FVLPAGE.HTM</mods:publisher>
>>        </mods:originInfo>
>>        <mods:physicalDescription rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:digitalOrigin>reformatted digital</mods:digitalOrigin>
>>            <mods:note>16mm; 1 film reel (25 min.) :; sd., col. ;</mods:note>
>>        </mods:physicalDescription>
>>        <mods:subject rdf:parseType="Resource">
>>            <mods:authority>lcsh</mods:authority>
>>            <mods:topic>Ranching</mods:topic>
>>        </mods:subject>
>> 
>> etc.
>> 
>> 
>> There is definitely some loss in the conversion process -- I don't know enough about the MARC leader and control fields to know if they are captured in the MODS and/or RDF in some way.  But there are quite a few local and note fields that aren't present in the RDF.  Other fields (e.g. 300 and 505) are mapped to MODS, but not displayed in our access system (though they are indexed for searching).
>> 
>> I agree it's hard to quantify lossy-ness.  Counting fields or characters would be the most objective, but has obvious problems with control characters sometimes containing a lot of information, and then the relative importance of different fields to the overall description.  There are other issues too -- some fields in this record weren't migrated because they duplicated collection-wide values, which are formulated slightly differently from the MARC record.  Some fields weren't migrated because they concern the physical object, and therefore don't really apply to the digital object.  So that really seems like a morass to me.
>> 
>> -Esme
>> --
>> Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is 
>> the  argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William 
>> Pitt, 1783
>> 
>> On 12/3/2011, at 10:35 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> 
>>> Esme, let me second Owen's enthusiasm for more detail if you can 
>>> supply it. I think we also need to start putting these efforts along 
>>> a "loss" continuum - MODS is already lossy vis-a-vis MARC, and my 
>>> guess is that some of the other MARC->RDF transforms don't include 
>>> all of the warts and wrinkles of MARC. LC's new bibliographic 
>>> framework document sets as a goal to bring along ALL of MARC (a 
>>> decision that I think isn't obvious, as we have already discussed 
>>> here). If we say we are going from MARC to RDF, how much is actually 
>>> captured in the transformed data set? (Yes, that's going to be hard 
>>> to quantify.)
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> Quoting Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> 
>>>> Owen-
>>>> 
>>>> Another strategy for capturing MARC data in RDF is to convert it to MODS (we do this using the LoC MARC to MODS stylesheet: http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/xslt/MARC21slim2MODS.xsl).  From there, it's pretty easy to incorporate into RDF.  There are some issues to be aware of, such as how to map the MODS XML names to predicates and how to handle elements that can appear in multiple places in the hierarchy.
>>>> 
>>>> -Esme
>>>> --
>>>> Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> 
>>>> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It 
>>>> is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William 
>>>> Pitt,
>>>> 1783
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/28/2011, at 8:25 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It would be great to start collecting transforms together - just a 
>>>>> quick brain dump of some I'm aware of
>>>>> 
>>>>> MARC21 transformations
>>>>> Cambridge University Library - http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk - 
>>>>> transformation made available (in code) from same site Open 
>>>>> University - http://data.open.ac.uk - specific transform for 
>>>>> materials related to teaching, code available at 
>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/luceroproject/source/browse/trunk%20lucer
>>>>> op 
>>>>> roject/OULinkedData/src/uk/ac/open/kmi/lucero/rdfextractor/RDFExtr
>>>>> ac tor.java (MARC transform is in libraryRDFExtraction method) 
>>>>> COPAC - small set of records from the COPAC Union catalogue - data 
>>>>> and transform not yet published Podes Projekt - LinkedAuthors - 
>>>>> documentation at 
>>>>> http://bibpode.no/linkedauthors/doc/Pode-LinkedAuthors-Documentati
>>>>> on .pdf - 2 stage transformation firstly from MARC to FRBRized 
>>>>> version of data, then from FRBRized data to RDF. These linked from 
>>>>> documentation Podes Project - LinkedNonFiction - documentation at 
>>>>> http://bibpode.no/linkednonfiction/doc/Pode-LinkedNonFiction-Docum
>>>>> en tation.pdf - MARC data transformed using xslt 
>>>>> https://github.com/pode/LinkedNonFiction/blob/master/marcslim2n3.x
>>>>> sl
>>>>> 
>>>>> British Library British National Bibliography - 
>>>>> http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/datafree.html - data model 
>>>>> documented, but no code available Libris.se - some notes in 
>>>>> various presentations/blogposts (e.g.
>>>>> http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/malmsten.pdf) but 
>>>>> can't find explicit transformation Hungarian National library - 
>>>>> http://thedatahub.org/dataset/hungarian-national-library-catalog 
>>>>> and http://nektar.oszk.hu/wiki/Semantic_web#Implementation - some 
>>>>> information on ontologies used but no code or explicit 
>>>>> transformation (not 100% sure this is from MARC) Talis - 
>>>>> implemented in several live catalogues including 
>>>>> http://catalogue.library.manchester.ac.uk/  - no documentation or 
>>>>> code afaik although some notes in
>>>>> 
>>>>> MAB transformation
>>>>> HBZ - some of the transformation documented at https://wiki1.hbz-nrw.de/display/SEM/Converting+the+Open+Data+from+the+hbz+to+BIBO, don't think any code published?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would be really helpful if more projects published their 
>>>>> transformations (or someone told me where to look!)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen Stephens
>>>>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>>>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 26 Nov 2011, at 15:58, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A few of the code4lib talk proposals mention projects that have or will transform MARC records into RDF. If any of you have documentation and/or examples of this, I would be very interested to see them, even if they are "under construction."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> kc
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

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 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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