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

RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:21:18 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB75AF@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: <public-lld@w3.org>
Sorry, I mean to say we could treat E&M as 1-to-1.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: 'Karen Coyle'; Ross Singer
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> 
> One way to punt on this problem would be to treat the relationship
> between W&M as 1-to-1 for now (80/20 rule). This would create some
> alias URIs for Expressions and possibly conflate a few, but we could
> always come in later and use owl:sameAs to reconcile the aliases and
> improve the data mining to split those we conflate.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:17 AM
> > To: Ross Singer
> > Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> >
> > Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> 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?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That's where my bugaboo about the dependency shows up. You can't
> > ever JUST
> > >> look at the Expression, you always have to take into account the
> > >> Expression+Work combination. Otherwise, we'd have half the library
> > universe
> > >> connected to a single expression for an English-language text.
> > Expressions
> > >> on their own are not meaningful. (And Manifestations on their own
> > are only
> > >> minimally meaningful.)
> > >>
> > > In this example, though, wouldn't the Work be the same?  The both
> > have
> > > the same Uniform Title:
> > >
> > > "Im Westen nichts Neues. English"
> > >
> > > One is a translation, one is "abridged and adapted", but this only
> > > seems to be defined in the statement of responsibility.
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm asking is, given these two MARC records
> > > http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328/marcxml and
> > > http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632/marcxml is there a way, other than
> > > performing heuristics on the 245$c (which I'm not counting out, I'm
> > > just trying to work with some real-life, chosen completely at
> random,
> > > data and see where we stand), to extract an accurate Expression?
> >
> > OK, Now I think I get it.
> >
> > Basically, I'm not sure you can extract an accurate Expression from
> > most MARC records, especially since they themselves may be
> inaccurate.
> > This one is especially interesting for transformations (and I'm not
> > exactly sure what the cataloging rules would say). In most cases, the
> > 100 field has the Work creator. In this case, the 100 field seems to
> > have the creator of the adaptation, which MIGHT be considered an
> > Expression, with this person as the author of the expression. How you
> > would get that, accurately, out of the MARC data is beyond me.
> >
> > There is a uniform title which should connect to the Work title, but
> > the authors would be different. It's quite possible that this MARC
> > record is WRONG in how it has represented the Work. It's also
> possible
> > that it's right, and all bets are off.
> >
> > This is an example of where MARC doesn't allow catalogers to say what
> > RDA and FRBR want: there isn't a way to create a relationship between
> > the M E & W. It may be inherent in the record (if you know how to
> read
> > it) but it isn't there as data.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > >
> > > -Ross.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 16:22:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 March 2011 16:22:47 GMT