 |
 |
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]