RE: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

To update, I see that as-of 2010, there is a place in MARC to store
ISTCs. 

http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp04.html

I can run a Map/Reduce job to see what that yields in WorldCat. If there
is another source of information (such as an ONIX dataset), though, it
might help. I've been intending to take a closer look at ONIX in
general, but having a starting place to focus might help.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:41 PM
> To: 'LAURA DAWSON'
> Cc: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>; <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
> 
> Laura,
> 
> Sorry, ISTC didn't come to mind because I'm barely aware of its
> existence. Any theory on this is a good theory. Is there some sample
> data available that we could examine?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:35 PM
> > To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> > Cc: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>; <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
> >
> > Please let's not forget ISTC?
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:30 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Karen,
> > >
> > > The thought that a Wikipedia page could be considered to represent
> > the
> > > Work has been bugging me for awhile too. I've heard Roy Tennant
use
> > > the term "Ground Truth" when it comes to mapping MARC to BIBFRAME.
> > > My feeling is that this Wikipedia comparison for Work is a
credible
> > > variant of that.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 2:44 PM
> > >> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> > >> Subject: Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
> > >>
> > >> Jason, thanks for working on this. CommonEndeavor is a corollary
> to
> > > the
> > >> work/Instance proposal. Work/Instance assumes a hierarchy -- that
> > you
> > >> have a Work like "Moby Dick" that is published in many forms, and
> > >> that you have identifier for that Work that is more abstract than
> > any
> > >> of
> > > the
> > >> actual publications. For example, a Wikipedia page could be
> > >> considered to represent the Work, not any of the specific
> > >> publications. The Instance then is an Instance of that work.
> > >>
> > >> In many cases you do not have an identified "thing" for the Work,
> > >> or
> > > at
> > >> least you don't have one handy at the time you are creating the
> > >> metadata. But you do, for example, have two different
publications
> > of
> > >> Moby Dick and you know they represent the same content. So
> > >> "CommonEndeavor" (which may not be a good name for it) is a way
of
> > >> saying that these two things share their creative content.
> > Eventually
> > >> these may be able to connect to a work and then they would become
> > >> instances of that work.
> > >>
> > >> On 1/26/13 11:04 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there a URI for this Book? If so it could be used either as
> the
> > >>> value of the itemid attribute or as the value of the url
> property.
> > > If
> > >>> itemid is used in the example, then it would remove some blank
> > nodes
> > >>> in the RDF output. (Microdata processors that know about the
> > >>> Schema.org vocabulary should probably treat the url property in
> > >>> the same way. Schema.org promotes the url property instead of
> > >>> itemid
> > for
> > >>> some reason.) Even though the Schema.org examples don't use
> itemid
> > >>> there is no reason why we couldn't show better examples that do
> > >>> use the attribute.
> > >>
> > >> There could be a URI for the Books. Actually, there could be more
> > >> than one for each book since bibliographic data often gets a
> > >> handful of
> > >> identifiers: the identifier of the national library that
> originally
> > >> created the record, the identifier of OCLC when the record
entered
> > > that
> > >> database, the identifier of the local library system where the
> > record
> > >> currently resides, as well as an ISBN. Which one is "the"
> > >> identifier that should be the URI for the book is not always
> clear.
> > >> I tend to favor the local system number from the system that most
> > >> recently exposed the bibliographic data as the "subject" URI,
with
> > >> the others
> > > as
> > >> additional identifiers.
> > >>
> > >> All that to say that I can easily make up a URI for each of these
> > >> items. :-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> If commonEndeavor is a property of CreativeWork then the
expected
> > >> type
> > >>> (as is given in the Overview section) should be a CreativeWork.
> > >>> Currently, how this parses is as a list of URLs (since the value
> > >>> of
> > >> an
> > >>> itemprop on an a element is the value of the href attribute). So
> I
> > >>> think the example is a poor one as it doesn't show how we'd like
> > > this
> > >>> to be used. This might in fact be the kind of data that
> publishers
> > >> end
> > >>> up creating, but the example we give should be more correct and
> > show
> > >>> more of the expressiveness.
> > >>
> > >> I'm afraid you lost me here. I copied a bunch of stuff from the
> > >> work/instance page [1] but had trouble fitting it into my
example.
> > If
> > > I
> > >> have sufficiently explained the intention, please feel free to
> make
> > > the
> > >> example better. If not, contact me and I'm happy to work with you
> > >> on it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Is the CommonEndeavor proposal one that the group is still
> > >> considering
> > >>> pursuing?
> > >>
> > >> I believe it is still on the table, and so appreciate any work
you
> > > wish
> > >> to do on it. As I say above, my main goal was to have a
horizontal
> > >> relationship between bibliographic items in addition to the
> > >> vertical relationship of work/instance, especially when the Work
> > >> information isn't available (which at the moment it usually
> isn't).
> > >> In current library work there are a number of horizontal
> > >> relationships being
> > >> considered:
> > >> - adaptation of (e.g. a book made into a movie; a children's
> > >> version
> > > of
> > >> an adult text)
> > >> - translation of
> > >> - arrangement of (for music)
> > >>
> > >> etc. CommonEndeavor is kind of a catchall, and the more specific
> > >> relationships, where known, would be preferable.
> > >>
> > >> I don't feel strongly that we have to include this particular
> > >> vocabulary term, but I just don't think that we've got the data
to
> > > make
> > >> much use of the hierarchical relationships at this time.
> > >>
> > >> kc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If so, I can update the example to use the expected type for
> > >>> this property. I mainly just wanted to give an example of how
the
> > >>> examples could be formatted to make it easier to evaluate them
> and
> > >>> show the tools used to generate the output. If there is a desire
> > >>> an RDFa Lite example with resulting RDF could also be created,
> > >>> though
> > > it
> > >>> ought to be very similar to the Microdata one.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jason
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]
> > >>
> >
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor#Simple_ex
> > >> a
> > >>> mple_showing_HTML_markup
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Karen Coyle
> > >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> > >> skype: kcoylenet
> > >
> > >
> > >

Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 04:00:40 UTC