- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:22:43 -0800
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
I guess I just don't consider a URI a "source" -- it's more of a format. Other sources listed for MARC are things like ISBN, ISSN, ISO, DOI, EAN. Those all seem to indicate the agency or program that generates the identifier, not its format. I agree that URI is on the list, I just don't find it to be in the spirit of the list. (BTW, you know it's a URI by its format.) kc Quoting "Guenther, Rebecca" <rgue@loc.gov>: > Jeff is correct in how he said it would be coded in MARC. > > I'm not sure what Karen is saying here, but 024 $2 is supposed to > specify the type of identifier (not the agency assigning it) > represented by the data in $a. URI is on the list of standard > identifier source codes. If someone wanted to use VIAF identifiers, > we could add it to the standard identifier list and use it if it > were not also a URI (for example, an LCCN could be represented as a > "raw" LCCN and "lccn" is on the identifier list or as a URI where > the LCCN is the last part of the string). If the VIAF identifier can > be represented by a URI, you could use $2 uri and the fact that it's > viaf will be implicit in the identifier itself in 024 $a. > 024 is a standard identifier field and it is expected that the type > of identifier is specified in $2. I realize that the documentation > calls it "Source of number or code"; this is consistent with other > $2 subfields in other fields, but in the case of 024 "source" refers > more to being in the list of standard identifier source codes (the > documentation links to that list). > > Rebecca > > Rebecca S. Guenther > Senior Networking & Standards Specialist > Network Development & MARC Standards Office > Library of Congress > 101 Independence Ave SE > Washington, DC 20540 > voice: +1.202.707.5092 > fax: +1.202.707.0115 > rgue@loc.gov > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:39 PM > To: Young,Jeff (OR) > Cc: public-lld > Subject: Re: MARC Authority 001 and Linked Data (was RE: Linked Data > URIs in MARC Authorities) > > Jeff, my only comment is on the 024 $2. The 024 is kind of a > catch-all field, as you know, and the $2 is supposed to be the > source institution or agency for the value in the $a: > > $2 - Source of number or code > MARC code that identifies the source of the number or code. Used > only when the first indicator contains value 7 (Source specified in > subfield $2). > Code from: Standard Identifier Source Codes. > > That would indicate that the $2 should be something like "viaf" -- > although admittedly that doesn't convey the fact that the URI > represents the entity named in the 1XX field. I would guess that > with viaf in the $2 (even though it is redundant with the domain > name, but that could be considered a coincidence) we could agree on > the meaning of the identifier in practice. The concept of RWOs isn't > one that MARC recognizes, and for sure not in the 024 field. > > kc > > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: > >> VIAF is using Corine's suggestion of the MARC Authority 024 to record >> the URI that identifies "the entity named in the 1XX field" >> (aka "real world object" or "non-information resource"). >> >> 024 7# $ahttp://viaf.org/viaf/102333412$2uri >> >> Contrast that with the URI VIAF coins specifically for the >> corresponding MARC21 representation (aka " document" or "information >> resource"): >> >> http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/marc21.xml >> >> I would argue that this URI is the de facto "control number" for our >> MARC21 Authority record and thus belongs in the 001 field. Here's the >> spec: >> >> http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad001.html >> >> Here's what it would look like in context: >> >> 001 http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/marc21.xml >> 003 OCoLC >> 024 7# $ahttp://viaf.org/viaf/102333412$2uri >> >> Does anyone disagree with this interpretation or imagine a plausible >> scenario where using an HTTP URI in the 001 would cause problems? >> >> Jeff >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Deliot, Corine [mailto:Corine.Deliot@bl.uk] >>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 10:11 AM >>> To: Xavier Agenjo; Karen Coyle; Young,Jeff (OR) >>> Cc: public-lld >>> Subject: RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Sorry to be coming into this thread a bit late but I thought I would >>> point you to the paper that was discussed at MARBI last June on how >>> to record the ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier) in MARC >>> bibliographic and authority records as I think it is relevant to the >>> current discussion. >>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-06.html >>> >>> This extended the definition of subfield $0 to enable the recording >>> of the ISNI and other appropriate standard identifiers in the >>> bibliographic format (see new definition: >>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html) >>> >>> In the authority format, the ISNI is recorded in the 024. Subfield $0 >>> is not defined in the authority format in the 1XXs as (somebody >>> mentioned this in this thread) the authority record control number or >>> identifier would be associated to the preferred heading. Field 024 is >>> the appropriate place to record identifiers associated with the >>> entity represented by the whole authority record. However the >>> definition of subfield $0 in the authority format (i.e. 5XXs) was >>> extended in a similar way to the bibliographic format to enable the >>> recording of identifiers of related entities. >>> (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadcntf.html) >>> >>> So on a similar basis, you could record URIs in MARC authority >>> records as in the example below: >>> >>> 024 7# $a8462832856536435$2isni >>> 024 7# $ahttp://www.viaf.org/viaf/120719476/$2uri >>> 024 7# $ahttp://openlibrary.org/authors/OL22672/A$2uri >>> 100 1# $aRendell, Ruth,$d1930- >>> 500 1# $aVine, >>> Barbara,$d1930$0(isni)1422458635730476$0(uri)http://www.viaf.org/viaf >>> /9 8146313/$0(uri)http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL21420A/ >>> 670 ## $aHer From Doon with death, 1964. >>> 670 ## $aHer A dark-adapted eye, 1986:$bCIP t.p. (Barbara Vine) 670 >>> ## $aInfo. from pub., 1/28/86$b(Barbara Vine is pseud. used by Ruth >>> Rendell) >>> >>> uri is already defined in the Standard Identifier Source Codes list >>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/standard-identifier.html >>> >>> Subfield $0 is also defined in the 7XXs in the authority format, >>> which would allow the multilingual linking Xavier mentions below. >>> >>> Corine >>> >>> >>> ********************************* >>> Corine Deliot >>> Metadata Standards Analyst >>> The British Library >>> Boston Spa, Wetherby >>> West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ >>> e-mail: corine.deliot@bl.uk >>> ********************************* >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On >>> Behalf Of Xavier Agenjo >>> Sent: 2010-10-02 16:53 >>> To: Karen Coyle; Young,Jeff (OR) >>> Cc: public-lld >>> Subject: RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> At the Biblioteca Virtual de Poligrafos (Polimath Virtual Library), >>> we have used, for the moment, 670 (Source Data Found (R) $u in >>> authority records for VIAF and LCSH URIs >>> >>> 670 >>> $aVIAF$bID:89794074$uhttp://www.viaf.org/viaf/89794074/ >>> >>> 670 $aLibrary of Congress Subject >>> Headings$uhttp://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85090244#concept >>> >>> We tried not to create a new field or subfield that always causes >>> problems of understanding as we want to continue sharing >>> bibliographic data in a standardized way. Also, we considered 856 too >>> generic to be used to built further applications or navigation >>> methods through persons, concepts, etc. >>> Probably, the best solution is 1XX $0 in authority headings, as it >>> can be used for headings + subdivision or subdivision and $0 it is >>> not for human reading. >>> However, the advantage of using the $0 in the 1XX is that it allows >>> links between people and concepts in a multilingual way. >>> Something like that: >>> >>> 150 $0FILA20100020647 $aIndulgencias (Derecho canónico) >>> 750 >>> $0(LCSH)http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85065814#concept $aThe >>> Library of Congress. Authorities & Vocabularies. LC Subject Headings >>> >>> Of course, something is missing in 1XX $0 that is the possibility to >>> express the language of heading (but that happens in all the other >>> solutions proposed) >>> >>> If you want to see more, including the use of MARC/RDA fields in >>> authority records you can take a look to >>> http://www.larramendi.es/i18n/consulta_aut/registro.cmd?control=POLI2 >>> 00 90012677&formato=etiquetado_aut&aplicar=Aplicar or to the >>> >>> Xavier >>> >>> Xavier Agenjo >>> Project Manager >>> Fundacion Ignacio Larramendi >>> http://www.larramendi.es >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> De: public-lld-request@w3.org [public-lld-request@w3.org] En nombre >>> de Karen Coyle [kcoyle@kcoyle.net] Enviado el: sábado, 02 de octubre >>> de 2010 0:20 >>> Para: Young,Jeff (OR) >>> CC: public-lld >>> Asunto: RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: >>> >>> >>> > >>> > 024 8# $u http://example.org/foo >>> > >>> > I would argue that the spec for this new $u should be explicitly >>> > worded to mention "Linked Data". Sensible behavior would be for it >>> > to lead to content-negotiatable representations in HTML, MARCXML, >>> > MADS, RDF, etc. >>> >>> But isn't the identifier *just* an identifier? It could be used for >>> anything where an identifier is useful -- not just linked data. Or >>> are you thinking of this subfield to be *only* for LD identifiers? In >>> that case, it might be useful to use a subfield other than $u, which >>> in MARC has usually been used for URLs, not URIs (the 856 is >>> specifically a location area field). So 035 $l or 035 $i, or >>> something like that. >>> >>> kc >>> >>> > >>> > Jeff >>> > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On >>> >> Behalf Of Ross Singer >>> >> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:36 PM >>> >> To: Martin Malmsten >>> >> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-lld >>> >> Subject: Re: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >> >>> >> Martin, I think it's a fine proposal. >>> >> >>> >> The only possible downside I can see (as opposed to using, say, >>> >> the 035, for example) is that it would be in a different location >>> >> depending on the kind of authority record it is >>> >> (personal/corporate/meeting name, uniform title, topical, >>> >> geographical, etc.). >>> >> >>> >> That's not necessarily a killer, but it would mean you'd need to >>> look >>> >> for every field until you found the URI. Using the 035 would >>> >> centralize that a bit. >>> >> >>> >> Martin, since $0 isn't actually considered part of MARC authority, >>> >> have you seen any systems reject this (or have you just used it >>> >> locally)? >>> >> >>> >> My guess is that systems will ignore the subfields they don't >>> >> understand rather than raise an error, but I guess it will take a >>> >> real world trial to know for sure. >>> >> >>> >> -Ross. >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Martin Malmsten >>> >> <Martin.Malmsten@kb.se> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Jeff, Ross, >>> >> > >>> >> > we use $0 when exporting our bibliographic[1] records which is >>> >> > why I >>> >> chose it. Again this is just testing, but it seems a likely >>> candidate. >>> >> > >>> >> >> It seems applicable, but the context it would be used in would >>> >> >> sort >>> >> of >>> >> >> imply the opposite meaning than what it does in bibliographic >>> >> records. >>> >> > I see the link as going either "sideways" to another authority >>> >> record/page/resource or "upwards", e.g from our 750 to a LCSH. In >>> the >>> >> latter case we would ultimately want to propagate changes made to >>> the >>> >> LCSH into our record, making the link behave like between a bib >>> >> and an auth. >>> >> > >>> >> > /martin >>> >> > >>> >> > On Oct 1, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Ross Singer wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Jeff, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The 1xx$0 is actually used in bib records (not authority) and >>> >> >> is >>> >> defined as: >>> >> >> $0 - Authority record control number (R) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd100.html >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It seems applicable, but the context it would be used in would >>> >> >> sort >>> >> of >>> >> >> imply the opposite meaning than what it does in bibliographic >>> >> records. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -Ross. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) >>> >> >> <jyoung@oclc.org> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> Martin, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I can believe that "the 1XX identifies what the record is >>> *about*" >>> >> and would challenge anyone to argue otherwise. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> What is your argument for choosing $0 rather than $u? Neither >>> are >>> >> currently specified and $u appears to be commonly used for URIs in >>> >> other fields: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html#other_fields >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Jeff >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >>>> From: Martin Malmsten [mailto:Martin.Malmsten@kb.se] >>> >> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 3:32 PM >>> >> >>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR) >>> >> >>>> Cc: public-lld@w3.org >>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Jeff, >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> I understand, but would not putting a $0 in the 1XX >>> >> >>>> accomplish >>> >> just >>> >> >>>> that since the 1XX identifies what the record is "about"? I'm >>> >> >>>> just saying that by using $0 you could link to other things >>> >> >>>> (or >>> >> >>>> Things) >>> >> from >>> >> >>>> other parts of the record as well. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> However, we do actually use 856 with a $z in our production >>> >> environment >>> >> >>>> today. It works, but I do not like the amount of implicit >>> >> information >>> >> >>>> with this (or rather our version of this) solution. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Example: >>> >> >>>> 100 '1' ' ' $aStrindberg, August, $d1849-1912 >>> >> >>>> 856 '4' '8' $uhttp://viaf.org/viaf/54154627 $zVIAF >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> /martin >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> Martin, >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> I think our use cases are getting mixed up. I want a place >>> >> >>>>> to >>> >> >>>> identify the thing the Authority record (as a whole) >>> represents. >>> >> >>>> Linking to *other* things inside a MARC record is a harder >>> >> >>>> and >>> >> more >>> >> >>>> controversial problem as Michael's response indicates. I'm >>> >> >>>> hoping >>> >> this >>> >> >>>> is low-hanging fruit, but I admit the difference is subtle. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Jeff >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >>>>>> From: Martin Malmsten [mailto:Martin.Malmsten@kb.se] >>> >> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:36 PM >>> >> >>>>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR) >>> >> >>>>>> Cc: public-lld@w3.org >>> >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Jeff, Karen. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> I prefer a subfield over a field because may I want to link >>> >> >>>>>> only >>> >> >>>> parts >>> >> >>>>>> of the record, and not necessarily the 1XX-field, to >>> >> >>>>>> another >>> >> >>>> resource >>> >> >>>>>> without having to resort to a $8-link (*shudder*). >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Example: >>> >> >>>>>> 150 ' ' ' ' $aMödrar >>> >> >>>>>> 750 ' ' '0' $aMothers $0 >>> >> >>>>>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85087526#concept >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> /martin >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> How about this: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> 856 4# $u http://example.org/foo >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Here's the documentation for the field: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad856.html >>> >> >>>>>>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Jeff >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> From: Martin Malmsten [mailto:Martin.Malmsten@kb.se] >>> >> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:26 PM >>> >> >>>>>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR) >>> >> >>>>>>> Cc: public-lld@w3.org >>> >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I'm considering/testing $0 in the 1XX fields, analogues to >>> $0 >>> >> in >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>>>> bib record. The idea is that a DbPedia/Freebase/VIAF URI >>> could >>> >> >>>>>> authorise an authority record. "Global headings change" >>> >> >>>>>> becomes >>> >> a >>> >> >>>> fun >>> >> >>>>>> challenge with LD URIs within the record :) >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> On 1 okt 2010, at 18:00, "Young,Jeff (OR)" >>> >> >>>>>>> <jyoung@oclc.org> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> If somebody wanted to put a Linked Data RWO URI in a MARC >>> >> Authority >>> >> >>>>>> record, where would it plausibly go? >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Jeff >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> --- >>> >> >>>>>>> Jeffrey A. Young >>> >> >>>>>>> Software Architect >>> >> >>>>>>> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410 OCLC Online Computer Library >>> >> >>>>>>> Center, Inc. >>> >> >>>>>>> 6565 Kilgour Place >>> >> >>>>>>> Dublin, OH 43017-3395 >>> >> >>>>>>> www.oclc.org >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Voice: 614-764-4342 >>> >> >>>>>>> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342 >>> >> >>>>>>> Fax: 614-718-7477 >>> >> >>>>>>> Email: jyoung@oclc.org >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> - >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> - >>> >> >>>>>> Martin Malmsten (martin.malmsten@kb.se) - Senior Developer >>> >> >>>>>> National Library of Sweden / National cooperation dept. / >>> >> >>>>>> LIBRIS http://libris.kb.se >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >>>> -- >>> - >>> >> >>>> - Martin Malmsten (martin.malmsten@kb.se) - Senior Developer >>> >> >>>> National Library of Sweden / National cooperation dept. / >>> LIBRIS >>> >> >>>> http://libris.kb.se >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ shared >>> >> >>> innovation(tm) >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may >>> >> >>> not >>> >> be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of >>> >> this email message and any files that may be attached are >>> >> confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If >>> >> you are not the intended recipient, then please return this >>> >> message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an >>> >> unauthorised recipient is prohibited. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of >>> companies >>> >> and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office >>> at >>> >> Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB. >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > - Martin Malmsten (martin.malmsten@kb.se) - Senior Developer >>> National >>> >> > Library of Sweden / National cooperation dept. / LIBRIS >>> >> > http://libris.kb.se >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************************************* >>> ** >>> *** >>> >>> Help us celebrate National Customer Service Week 4 - 10 October. >>> National Customer Service Week is designed to raise the awareness of >>> customer service and the vital role it plays within any organisation. >>> It is also an opportunity to say a big thank you to all our customers >>> for their support. >>> We are having an Open Day at our site in Yorkshire on Tuesday 5th >>> October. If you are interested in seeing 'behind the scenes' of one >>> of the largest and most technologically advanced library repositories >>> in the world, follow an order from receipt to delivery and meet the >>> Customer Service team, please contact us at mailto:customer- >>> services@bl.uk >>> >>> Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ >>> >>> The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts >>> 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge >>> >>> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. >>> http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook >>> >>> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled >>> >>> ********************************************************************* >>> ** >>> ** >>> >>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be >>> legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you >>> are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify >>> the mailto:postmaster@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be >>> disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. >>> >>> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of >>> the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British >>> Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the >>> views of the author. >>> >>> ********************************************************************* >>> ** >>> ** >>> Think before you print >> >> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 20:23:19 UTC