W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHE0GSGT+a17JPv82Kg4BzFBeYVCoWi7utF73k@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
One thing I want to clear up, I'm not disputing creating resources without
all of the information available up front.  What I am asking is, how much is
needed to accurately create an Expression?

If what we have is a record type (BKS) and language of publication (en), is
this enough information to accurately create an Expression and start
associating Manifestations to it?  I'll table for the moment my questions
about whether or not this is useful, focusing instead what exactly is needed
to create an (accurate) Expression from legacy MARC and what else we might
expect to commonly see in a typical MARC record to help draw upon.

The LC FRBR Display Tool (
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html#table) only
mentions record type and publication language, but surely this isn't enough,
right?  This: http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328 isn't describing the same
expression as this: http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632, correct?

-Ross.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>wrote:

> In message
> <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB715A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>,
> "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> writes
>
>
>> Inferencing aside, having half the story for an Expression or Work is
>> still enough to justify identifying these individuals. I wouldn't
>> consider them any less "real" than their fully described counterparts.
>> UUIDs are free. This allows downstream agents to assert owl:sameAs with
>> another individual and thus fill in more of the story on both sides.
>> (As mere mortals, we'll never ever have "the full story" on anything.)
>>
>
> I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a few days now ...
>
> I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL, and
> thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its
> properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum
> world, where information about an entity of interest (person, place,
> event, ...) will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This shouldn't
> stop us from asserting what we _do_ know (or believe).
>
> As a matter of interest, where does FRBRoo
> (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_inro.html) come into this discussion?
>
> Richard
> --
> Richard Light
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
>
> 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.
>
> Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg, VA
> 22408, United States of America.
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:46:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:46:32 GMT