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

Fwd: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:17:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4D776FDB.2060500@few.vu.nl>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:43:13 -0800
> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> CC: <public-lld@w3.org>
> Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:
>> Yes, and a crucial one! With such a move, library data will be much
>> more useful for the linked data crowds.
>> Out of my head I can foresee two scenarios:
>> 1. change of cataloging behaviour, with catalogers really connecting
>> books and other resources to (identifiers of) real world entities.
>> 2. keep the cataloging behaviour, but try to have the text values
>> (or authorities, or whatever name for proxies we want to come with
>> ;-) ) related to real-world entities. A bit like what VIAF is trying
>> to do--starting from library data alone, though.
> Yes, these make sense to me as the main options.
>> But I'm really wondering why 1 would not be possible for quite
>> easily identifiable entities like places and persons. With some
>> basic tools that use existing linked data sources like Geonames, you
>> could easily get something like a "did you mean
>> http://sws.geonames.org/2988507/?" question (with a better
>> interface, of course) that a cataloger can answer by yes or no, when
>> "Paris" is filled in as place of publication.
>> That would maybe not always work--especially for the "Paris" that
>> are not the true one in my heart :-p.
> Uh, let me guess...  :-)
> But in many cases that would still
>> be useful, and appropriately exploit what catalogers are doing, I
>> believe. I mean, the ones I have met were smart people, they must
>> think of the place itself while filling in the name of it. That
>> seems a quick win. Or am I really wrong?
> I think if systems could make it very easy, then the people creating
> metadata would probably be willing to add the data. Yet at least
> initially this must be "added" data that does not replace the data
> that the cataloging rules require. Eventually I think that the concept
> of cataloging might change and the need to transcribe may become less
> important for modern materials (it can still be key for older works),
> especially where the "thing" and the text are close enough to be
> represented by one data element.
> This "added" data is really the equivalent of the coded values in
> MARC, in my mind. Where possible, systems need to create short-cuts so
> that catalogers do not have to fill in both the text value and the
> coded value (most of what is coded in MARC is redundant with data in
> the textual fields). We need to make it so that catalogers have to do
> *less* not *more* if we wish to get them on board. That's only fair.

Good points. Perhaps that could be also something interesting to mention in the report, in recommendations on how to change (if possible) the way library data could be created or processed. So as to make sure that the original work of librarians has maximum impact in a more open environment...

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 12:16:54 UTC

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