- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:58:22 -0600
- To: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
A VERY good direction indeed, Ross. Kudos. My concern is eventual handling of overlap with *form subdivisions* AND *topical terms* such as [1] http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh99001606 [2] http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85037700 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, forwarding a thread from the open-bibliography > (http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography) list here. > It started with a question from Owen Stephens about a topic that's > come up here before (subdivisions, coordination, etc.). > > I'm bringing it here because Owen's question prompted me to explain > some of the ideas I've been playing around with in this regard in > http://lcsubjects.org/ which might be of interest here, as well. > > First Owen's original post: > > "Can anyone point me at (or advise me on) examples of representing > subject heading fields from a library catalogue record as RDF. > Specifically I'm interested in how chained sets of subject headings > are represented. > > E.g. a library catalogue record might have a heading: > > 650$$aPopular Music$$xHistory$$y20th Century > > Each one of these headings: > > Popular Music > History > 20th Century > > will have a SKOS representation on id.loc.gov, but to represent each > heading separately as a dc:subject (or similar) would lose the context > of chaining them together. > > There are some entries on id.loc.gov that represent some 'chains' > (those that have been 'authorised') - e.g. > http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2008109787#concept is 'Popular > Music--History and Criticism' - but for me this doesn't feel quite > right - doesn't this lose some of the flexibility of the faceted > scheme? > > I'm wondering about something similar to the way BIBO handles author > lists (you can both represent each author, and the list of authors, > including order)" > > and then my reply: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> > Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM > Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] Library of Congress subject headings & RDF > To: List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data > <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org> > > > Hi Owen, > > I agree that the status quo at id.loc.gov is pretty unsatisfying (on > several levels, including this one) and this is one the things that I > changed for lcsubjects.org in the last redesign (although it's > certainly not "fixed" or even remotely standard - but it was intended > to get the conversation started in this direction). > > Thankfully, though, your specific example works :) > > http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh2008109787#concept > > For subdivided subject headings like this, I've added a few > properties: lcsh:coordinates, lcsh:generalSubdivision, > lcsh:chronologicalSubdivision, lcsh:primaryConcept, etc. > > The RDF out of lcsubjects.org is pretty brutally verbose, but directly > out of the Platform it looks like: > http://api.talis.com/stores/lcsh-info/meta?about=http%3A%2F%2Flcsubjects.org%2Fsubjects%2Fsh2008109787%23concept&output=xml > > and the coordinates resource is an rdf:Seq (to preserve order): > > http://api.talis.com/stores/lcsh-info/meta?about=http%3A%2F%2Flcsubjects.org%2Fsubjects%2Fsh2008109787%23coordinates&output=xml > > This is still totally a work in progress (and incredibly incomplete), > but is intended to begin to provide the sort of semantics that you're > looking for (I think). It also (I hope) begins to lay out a > foundation for how LCSH is actually intended to be used (which is a > set of building blocks). So to take your original example, > "650$$aPopular Music$$xHistory$$y20th Century" > > This could be created like: > > <http://example.org/book/1> > dcterms:subject > <http://example.org/subjects/popular-music--history--20th-century#concept>. > > <http://example.org/subjects/popular-music--history--20th-century#concept> > lcsh:generalSubdivision > <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh99005024#concept> ; > lcsh:chronologicalSubdivision > <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh2002012476#concept>; > lcsh:primaryConcept <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85088865#concept> ; > a skos:Concept ; > skos:prefLabel "Popular Music--History--20th Century" ; > lcsh:coordinates > <http://example.org/subjects/popular-music--history--20th-century#coordinates> > . > > <http://example.org/subjects/popular-music--history--20th-century#coordinates> > a rdf:Seq ; > rdf:_1 <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85088865#concept> ; > rdf:_2 <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh99005024#concept> ; > rdf:_3 <http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh2002012476#concept> . > > (the lcsubjects.org URIs could just as easily be id.loc.gov URIs -- it > was just easier to cut and paste from existing data). > > With this, it's much easier to make our uncontrolled subject headings > that are composites of a bunch of controlled headings. > > Like I said, this is pretty incomplete on lcsubjects.org, currently, > mainly because there's a lot missing (namely the corporate names and > random chronological subdivisions, but there are also subdivision > terms that don't appear to be derived from an authorized heading). > See: http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh2010007497 or > http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85045754 as somewhat different > examples. > > The first one has a URI for Austria, but that URI returns a 404 (I > built this from the Fred 2.0 data, so I have the NAF, I just haven't > figured out how to incorporate it into lcsubjects.org, yet). The > second one shows an unauthorized chronological subdivision -- so, > currently, it just drops it. > > Here's another example: http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85134593#concept > > this should use: http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh99005746#concept as > the general subdivision -- but that's an altLabel, so it's currently > failing (as you can see, this is wrought with frustations!). > > Another mind bender: http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh2010106574#concept > > This one chokes, because "Polyglot" isn't an authorized term (instead > it should be using http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh85037700#concept > -- "Dictionaries, Polyglot") and was created after Fred 2.0 (3.5 years > after!), so I don't have access to the MARC authority record to > properly look things up (not that it would help me in this case, > anyway [1]). > > So, to try to bring this on home..., I think there are solutions (and > linked data solutions) to this, but LC is doing very little to enable > it. If they'd provide the original MARC as a format for the concepts, > that would be a start -- but, honestly, without all of the data > available (including the NAF), this is going to be half-baked. > > So, anyway, thanks for prompting me to write a bit about this :) > Probably worth forwarding to the SKOS list, as well. > > -Ross. > > [1] Here's the MARC record for Plastics--Dictionaries--Polyglot: > 000 00476cz a2200169n 450 > 001 8244985 > 005 20100420002715.0 > 008 100413|| anannbabn |n ana > 035 __ |a (DLC)464428 > 035 __ |a (DLC)sh2010106574 > 906 __ |t 8888 |u tc00 |v 0 > 010 __ |a sh2010106574 > 040 __ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC > 150 __ |a Plastics |v Dictionaries |x Polyglot > 667 __ |a Record generated for validation purposes. > 670 __ |a Work cat.: Fachwörterbuch Kunststofftechnik, c1992 > 953 __ |a tc00 > > so there's still not an obvious way to know that one should be looking > for Dictionaries, Polyglot. > > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote: >> Can anyone point me at (or advise me on) examples of representing subject >> heading fields from a library catalogue record as RDF. Specifically I'm >> interested in how chained sets of subject headings are represented. >> E.g. a library catalogue record might have a heading: >> 650$$aPopular Music$$xHistory$$y20th Century >> Each one of these headings: >> Popular Music >> History >> 20th Century >> will have a SKOS representation on id.loc.gov, but to represent each heading >> separately as a dc:subject (or similar) would lose the context of chaining >> them together. >> There are some entries on id.loc.gov that represent some 'chains' (those >> that have been 'authorised') - >> e.g. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh2008109787#concept is 'Popular >> Music--History and Criticism' - but for me this doesn't feel quite right - >> doesn't this lose some of the flexibility of the faceted scheme? >> I'm wondering about something similar to the way BIBO handles author lists >> (you can both represent each author, and the list of authors, including >> order) >> Thanks, >> Owen >> -- >> Owen Stephens >> Owen Stephens Consulting >> Web: http://www.ostephens.com >> Email: owen@ostephens.com >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> open-bibliography mailing list >> open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography >> >> > > -Ross. > > -- -Thad http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 18:58:54 UTC