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

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 22:06:54 +0000
Message-ID: <wah+zts+hqdNFwgT@light.demon.co.uk>
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
In message 
<AANLkTimHE0GSGT+a17JPv82Kg4BzFBeYVCoWi7utF73k@mail.gmail.com>, Ross 
Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> writes
>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?

Well yes, correct.  But that's precisely my point: whatever basis was 
used to arrive at that position, they have been assigned different URLs, 
and ipso facto it is asserted that they are distinct entities.  I have 
no view on what would count as sufficient information to arrive at that 
conclusion (although the raft of different properties would seem to make 
it a no-brainer in this case).

It may often be the case that it is the relationship of a manifestation 
to a work which gives a cataloguer a clue to its identity, i.e. this may 
be a context-sensitive decision, not just an evaluation of the 
Expression in isolation.  Either way, it is always easier to dish out 
different URLs for what turn out to be the same Expression, and merge 
them later, than to wrongly clump together two distinct Expressions (or 
Manifestations) and have to disentangle them later.


>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.
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3489 - Release Date: 03/07/11

Richard Light
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 22:07:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:43 UTC