 |
 |
One thing I note in the current SRU list is that versioning might be an issue. MODS 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 all have different identifiers (naturally) but the same "short name". I've run into this issue with OAI-PMH, where there isn't a formal registry of metadata formats but general conventions that most folks follow. The issue there is that from the OAI-PMH metadataPrefix (which I think is corollary to the SRU short name) you don't know which version of the format is being used. For minor release versions in practice this is more of an annoyance than a big problem, but I suspect for major release versions it could be a bigger issue. In the OpenURL list, "mods" is limited to *only* MODS 3.2. So when harmonizing these it might be useful to have a convention for dealing with version numbers within a format. Jenn ======================== Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Ross Singer > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:17 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to > Rule Them All > > I agree that most software probably won't do it. But the data will be > there and free and relatively easy to integrate if one wanted to. > > In a lot ways, Jonathan, it's got Umlaut written all over it. > > Now to get to Jonathan's point -- yes, I think the primary goal still > needs to be working towards bringing use of identifiers for a given > thing to a single variant. However, we would obviously have to know > what the options are in order to figure out what that one is -- while > we're doing that, why not enter the different options into the > registry and document them in some way (such as, who uses this > variant?). Voila, we have a "crosswalk". > > Of course, the downside is that we technically also have a "new" URI > for this resource (since the skos:Concept would need to have a URI), > but we could probably hand wave that away as the id for the registry > concept, not the data format. > > So -- we seem to have some agreement here? > > -Ross. > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > From my perspective, all we're talking about is using the same URI to > refer > > to the same format(s) accross the library community standards this > community > > generally can control. > > > > That will make things much easier for developers, especially but not > only > > when building software that interacts with more than one of these > standards > > (as client or server). > > > > Now, once you've done that, you've ALSO set the stage for that kind > of RDF > > scenario, among other RDF scenarios. I agree with Mike that that > particular > > scenario is unlikely, but once you set the stage for RDF > experimentation > > like that, if folks are interested in experimenting (and many in our > > community are), maybe something more attractively useful will come > out of > > it. > > > > Or maybe not. Either way, you've made things easier and more inter- > operable > > just by using the same set of URIs across multiple standards to refer > to the > > same thing. So, yeah, I'd still focus on that, rather than any kind > of > > 'cross walk', RDF or not. It's the actual use case in front of us, in > which > > the benefit will definitely be worth the effort (if the effort is > kept > > manageable by avoiding trying to solve the entire universe of > problems at > > once). > > > > Jonathan > > > > Mike Taylor wrote: > >> > >> So what are we talking about here? A situation where an SRU server > >> receives a request for response records to be delivered in a > >> particular format, it doesn't recognise the format URI, so it goes > and > >> looks it up in an RDF database and discovers that it's equivalent to > a > >> URI that it does know? Hmm ... it's crazy, but it might just work. > >> > >> I bet no-one does it, though. > >> > >> _/|_ > >> ___________________________________________________________________ > >> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> > >> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk > >> )_v__/\ "Someday, I'll show you around monster-free Tokyo" -- > dialogue > >> from "Gamera: Guardian of the Universe" > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Peter Noerr writes: > >> > I agree with Ross wholeheartedly. Particularly in the use of an > RDF > >> based mechanism to describe, and then have systems act on, the > semantics of > >> these uniquely identified objects. Semantics (as in Web) has been > exercising > >> my thoughts recently and the problems we have here are writ large > over all > >> the SW people are trying to achieve. Perhaps we can help... > >> > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf > >> Of > >> > > Ross Singer > >> > > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 13:40 > >> > > To: [log in to unmask] > >> > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and > Registry) to > >> Rule > >> > > Them All > >> > > > > Ideally, though, if we have some buy in and extend this > outside > >> our > >> > > communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, > since > >> > > people can find the appropriate URI for the format and use > that. > >> > > > > I readily admit that this is wishful thinking, but so be > it. I > >> do > >> > > think that modeling it as SKOS/RDF at least would make it > attractive > >> > > to the Linked Data/Semweb crowd who are likely the sorts of > people > >> > > that would be interested in seeing URIs, anyway. > >> > > > > I mean, the worst that can happen is that nobody cares, > right? > >> > > > > -Ross. > >> > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Peter Noerr > >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > > > I am pleased to disagree to various levels of 'strongly" (if > we can > >> agree > >> > > on a definition for it :-). > >> > > > > >> > > > Ross earlier gave a sample of a "crossw3alk' for my MARC > problem. > >> What he > >> > > supplied > >> > > > > >> > > > -----snip > >> > > > We could have something like: > >> > > > <http://purl.org/DataFormat/marcxml> > >> > > > . <skos:prefLabel> "MARC21 XML" . > >> > > > . <skos:notation> "info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1" . > >> > > > . <skos:notation> "info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:MARC21" . > >> > > > . <skos:notation> "http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" . > >> > > > . <skos:broader> http://purl.org/DataFormat/marc . > >> > > > . <skos:description> "..." . > >> > > > > >> > > > Or maybe those skos:notations should be owl:sameAs -- anyway, > >> that's not > >> > > really the point. The point is that all of these various > identifiers > >> would > >> > > be valid, but we'd have a real way of knowing what they > actually > >> mean. > >> > > Maybe this is what you mean by a crosswalk. > >> > > > ------end > >> > > > > >> > > > Is exactly what I meant by a "crosswalk". Basically a > translating > >> > > dictionary which allows any entity (system or person) to relate > the > >> various > >> > > identifiers. > >> > > > > >> > > > I would love to see a single unified set of identifiers, my > life as > >> a > >> > > wrangled of record semantics would be soooo much easier. But I > don't > >> see it > >> > > happening. > >> > > > > >> > > > That does not mean we should not try. Even a unification in > our > >> space > >> > > (and "if not in the library/information space, then where?" as > Mike > >> said) > >> > > reduces the larger problem. However I don't believe it is a > scalable > >> > > solution (which may not matter if all of a group of users > agree, they > >> why > >> > > not leave them to it) as, at any time one > >> group/organisation/person/system > >> > > could introduce a new scheme, and a world view which relies on > >> unified > >> > > semantics would no longer be viable. > >> > > > > >> > > > Which means until global unification on an object (better a > (large) > >> set > >> > > of objects) is achieved it will be necessary to have the > translating > >> > > dictionary and systems which know how to use it. Unification > reduces > >> Ray's > >> > > list of 15 alternative uris to 14 or 13 or whatever. As long as > that > >> number > >> > > is >1 translation will be necessary. (I will leave aside > discussions > >> of > >> > > massive record bloat, continual system re-writes, the politics > of > >> whose > >> > > view prevails, the unhelpfulness of compromises for joint > solutions, > >> and so > >> > > on.) > >> > > > > >> > > > Peter > >> > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On > >> Behalf Of > >> > > >> Mike Taylor > >> > > >> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 02:36 > >> > > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and > Registry) > >> to > >> > > Rule > >> > > >> Them All > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Jonathan Rochkind writes: > >> > > >> > Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very > small > >> > > >> > overlapping communities of most library developers can > surely > >> agree > >> > > >> > on using the same identifiers, and then we make things > easier > >> for > >> > > >> > US. We don't need to solve the entire universe of > problems. > >> Solve > >> > > >> > the simple problem in front of you in the simplest way > that > >> could > >> > > >> > possibly work and still leave room for future expansion > and > >> > > >> > improvement. From that, we learn how to solve the big > problems, > >> > > >> > when we're ready. Overreach and try to solve the huge > problem > >> > > >> > including every possible use case, many of which don't > apply to > >> you > >> > > >> > but SOMEDAY MIGHT... and you end up with the kind of > >> > > >> > over-abstracted over-engineered > >> > > >> > too-complicated-to-actually-catch-on solutions that... we > in > >> the > >> > > >> > library community normally end up with. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I strongly, STRONGLY agree with this. It's exactly what I > was > >> about > >> > > >> to write myself, in response to Peter's message, until I saw > that > >> > > >> Jonathan had saved me the trouble :-) Let's solve the > problem > >> that's > >> > > >> in front of us right now: bring SRU into harmony with > OpenURL in > >> this > >> > > >> respect, and the very act of doing so will lend extra > legitimacy > >> to > >> > > >> the agreed-on identifiers, which will then be more strongly > >> positioned > >> > > >> as The Right Identifiers for other initiatives to use. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> _/|_ > >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > >> > > >> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> > >> > > >> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk > >> > > >> )_v__/\ "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've > read > >> it in > >> > > >> the original Klingon." -- Klingon Programming Mantra > >> > > > > >> > >> > >