- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:34:45 -0400
- To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Karen, At one time MARC had a $g defined for URNs, but it was rarely used. Since URNs and URLs are subclasses of URI, $g was eventually abandoned in favor of the renamed and generalized $u (Uniform Resource Identifier). See the "CONTENT DESIGNATOR HISTORY" at the bottom of this page: http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad856.html For people who are confused about the difference between URN, URI, URL, etc., check out the W3C/IETF report explaining the "Classical view" vs. "Contemporary view" http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3305#section-2.1 I can imagine someone wanting to store legacy URNs or "info" URIs in a 024 $u, but IMO *HTTP* URIs SHOULD be constrained to be Linked Data (303s or hash). This is because the things MARC authority records describe are "non-information resources". Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:20 PM > To: Young,Jeff (OR) > Cc: public-lld > Subject: 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 Saturday, 2 October 2010 13:35:29 UTC