RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

One way to punt on this problem would be to treat the relationship between W&M as 1-to-1 for now (80/20 rule). This would create some alias URIs for Expressions and possibly conflate a few, but we could always come in later and use owl:sameAs to reconcile the aliases and improve the data mining to split those we conflate.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:17 AM
> To: Ross Singer
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> 
> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> wrote:
> >> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
> >>
> >>> The LC FRBR Display Tool (
> >>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html#table)
> only
> >>> mentions record type and publication language, but surely this
> isn't
> >>> enough,
> >>> right?  This: http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328 isn't describing the
> same
> >>> expression as this: http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632, correct?
> >>
> >>
> >> That's where my bugaboo about the dependency shows up. You can't
> ever JUST
> >> look at the Expression, you always have to take into account the
> >> Expression+Work combination. Otherwise, we'd have half the library
> universe
> >> connected to a single expression for an English-language text.
> Expressions
> >> on their own are not meaningful. (And Manifestations on their own
> are only
> >> minimally meaningful.)
> >>
> > In this example, though, wouldn't the Work be the same?  The both
> have
> > the same Uniform Title:
> >
> > "Im Westen nichts Neues. English"
> >
> > One is a translation, one is "abridged and adapted", but this only
> > seems to be defined in the statement of responsibility.
> >
> > I guess what I'm asking is, given these two MARC records
> > http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328/marcxml and
> > http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632/marcxml is there a way, other than
> > performing heuristics on the 245$c (which I'm not counting out, I'm
> > just trying to work with some real-life, chosen completely at random,
> > data and see where we stand), to extract an accurate Expression?
> 
> OK, Now I think I get it.
> 
> Basically, I'm not sure you can extract an accurate Expression from
> most MARC records, especially since they themselves may be inaccurate.
> This one is especially interesting for transformations (and I'm not
> exactly sure what the cataloging rules would say). In most cases, the
> 100 field has the Work creator. In this case, the 100 field seems to
> have the creator of the adaptation, which MIGHT be considered an
> Expression, with this person as the author of the expression. How you
> would get that, accurately, out of the MARC data is beyond me.
> 
> There is a uniform title which should connect to the Work title, but
> the authors would be different. It's quite possible that this MARC
> record is WRONG in how it has represented the Work. It's also possible
> that it's right, and all bets are off.
> 
> This is an example of where MARC doesn't allow catalogers to say what
> RDA and FRBR want: there isn't a way to create a relationship between
> the M E & W. It may be inherent in the record (if you know how to read
> it) but it isn't there as data.
> 
> kc
> 
> >
> > -Ross.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 16:21:27 UTC