RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities

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