On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 1. I believe id.loc.gov includes a list of MARC countries and a list for > geographic areas (based on the geographic names in 151 fields. > 2. cataloging rules instruct catalogers to use THOSE very name forms in 151 > $a when a subject can be divided (limited) geographically using $z. Yeah, this could get ugly pretty fast. It's a bit unclear to me what the distinction is between identical terms in both the geographic areas and the country codes (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/geographicAreas/e-uk-en & http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/countries/enk). Well, in LC's current representation, there *is* no distinction, they're both just skos:Concepts that (by virtue of skos:exactMatch) effectively interchangeable. See also http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/geographicAreas/fa and http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85009230#concept. You have a single institution minting multiple URIs for what is effectively the same thing (albeit in different vocabularies), although, ironically, nothing points at any actual real world objects. VIAF doesn't do much better in this particular case (there are lots of examples where it does, mind you): http://viaf.org/viaf/142995804 (see: http://viaf.org/viaf/142995804/rdf.xml). We have all of these triangulations around the concept of "England" or "Atlas mountains", but we can't actually refer to England or the Atlas mountains. Also, I am not somehow above this problem, either. With the linked MARC codes lists (http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/), I had to make a similar decision, I just chose to go the opposite route: define them as things, rather than concepts (http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/gacs/fa#location, http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/gacs/e-uk-en#location, http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/countries/enk#location, etc.), which presents its own set of problems (http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/gacs/h#location is not a SpatialThing no matter how liberal your definition). At some point, it's worth addressing what these things actually *are* and if, indeed, they are effectively the same thing, if it's worth preserving these redundancies, because I think they'll cause grief in the future. -Ross.