Ross Singer wrote:
3) What, specifically, is missing from DCTerms that would make a MODS
ontology needed? What, specifically, is missing from Bibliontology or
MusicOntology or FOAF or SKOS, etc. that justifies a new and, in many
places, overlapping vocabulary? Would time be better spent trying to
improve the existing vocabularies?
MARC: 182 fields, 1711 subfields, 2401 fixed field values
DC: 59 properties
Look at the sample records in MARCXML and DC at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml and you will see how lossy it is.
Now, you could argue that no one needs all of the detail in MARC, and
I'm sure it could be reduced down to something more rational, plus there
is redundancy in it, but for pity's sake, DC doesn't have a way to
indicate the EDITION of a work. FOAF has both *surname* and *family
name* and says: "These are not current stable or consistent..." No sh*t.
And try to clearly code a name like "Pope John Paul II" in FOAF. Oh, and
death dates. No death dates in FOAF because you wouldn't have DEAD
FRIENDS. But authors die.
Best if I stop there.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[email protected] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
