- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:29:56 -0400
- To: "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>, "Martin Malmsten" <Martin.Malmsten@kb.se>
- Cc: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
There's also a threat that the 1XX could be repeatable in the future which would create potential confusion. We poked around MARC Authorities and came up with 024 (Other Standard Identifier) as a plausible solution by using a $u. It could look like this: 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. 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 > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 21:30:26 UTC