RE: Linked Data URIs in MARC Authorities

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:


>
> 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.

But isn't the identifier *just* an identifier? It could be used for  
anything where an identifier is useful -- not just linked data. Or are  
you thinking of this subfield to be *only* for LD identifiers? In that  
case, it might be useful to use a subfield other than $u, which in  
MARC has usually been used for URLs, not URIs (the 856 is specifically  
a location area field). So 035 $l or 035 $i, or something like that.

kc

>
> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 22:21:18 UTC