Re: ISBD Ontology and Statement of Responsibility

Owen
 
MARC21 245$c should correspond to
isbd:hasStatementOfResponsibilityRelatingToTitle always. MARC21 250$b should map
to isbd:hasStatementOfResponsibilityRelatingToEdition. That's my personal
opinion, and does not reflect any official view of the ISBD Review Group (we are
hoping to do some work on mapping the ISBD namespace properties to UNIMARC over
the next year, but that's only just beginning).

 
Generally, the ISBD namespace is a better fit for MARC records than, say,
FRBR/RDA (because of the WEMI issue). MARC is based on ISBD somewhere down the
line, historically.
 
Cheers
 
Gordon




On 28 April 2011 at 15:17 Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:


> Wonder if anyone (Gordon, Karen?) can tell me (and apologies, my knowledge of
> ISBD is basic/non-existent):
> Converting MARC records to RDF, and we are looking at putting the statement of
> responsibility from MARC 245$$c somewhere in the RDF expression to preserve
> some of the textual description of 'contributor' roles. It looks like the
> proposed isbd ontlogy may be our best bet for an appropriate property. Is it
> possible to say that 245$$c would always be expressed
> as 'hasStatementOfResponsibilityRelatingToTitle'
> (http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1948.html), or would it
> be 'hasStatementOfResponsibilityRelatingToEdition'
> (http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1951.html), or would it depend
> on context etc?
> Thanks
> Owen
> 
> --
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com [mailto:owen@ostephens.com]