Re: ISBD Ontology and Statement of Responsibility

Just to back up Gordon, I, too, interpret those relationships as to  
245 $c and 250 $b.

kc

Quoting "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>:

> 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]



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

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 17:26:45 UTC