W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > October 2010

RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities

From: Deliot, Corine <Corine.Deliot@bl.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:11:17 +0100
Message-ID: <19BB7EB59CBC594D8DD9F3ACA1EB24A201538C56@w2k3-bspex2.ad.bl.uk>
To: "Xavier Agenjo" <xavier.agenjo@larramendi.es>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Young,Jeff \(OR\)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
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/98146313/$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=POLI20090012677&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
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 14:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 October 2010 14:17:20 GMT