Sure, my goal is simple in theory and complex in practice: take a pile of MARC records and turn them into a set of DCTERMS (I'll avoid reference to the older QDC notion) so that I can do interesting things with them — the simplest use case being exposing a "record" as a pile of RDF triples.
The main rationale behind using DCTERMS is that it is: a) more expressive than DC, obviously; and b) it's more interoperable with stuff like RDF than MODS, since it's based on the DC abstract model. The main reason I'm looking at MARC->MODS->DCTERMS instead of the known MARC->QDC crosswalk is because I can't read MARC worth beans (245? 799? XYZ? What?). And the LoC MARC->MODS XSL does a nice job of mapping and stripping out the stuff that I don't want to be bothered with anyway. Like I say, if I've misunderstood something, please do feel free to correct me. MJ PS. Actually, Karen's post today is pretty close to the mark. I'm building a prototype LibBase. http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2010/05/bib-data-and-semantic-web.html On 2010-05-03, at 12:12 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > Out of curiosity, what is your use case for turning this into DC? > That might help those of us that are struggling to figure out where to > start with trying to help you with an answer. > > -Ross. > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM, MJ Suhonos <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for your comments, guys. I was beginning to think the lack of >> response indicated that I'd asked something either heretical or painfully >> obvious. :-) >> >>> That's my understanding as well. oai_dc predates the defining of the 15 >>> legacy DC properties in the dcterms namespace, and it's my guess nobody saw >>> a reason to update the oai_dc definition after this happened. >> >> This is at least part of my use case — we do a lot of work with OAI on both >> ends, and oai_dc is pretty limited due to the original 15 elements. My >> thinking at this point is that there's no reason we couldn't define >> something like "oai_dcterms" and use the full QDC set based on the updated >> profile. Right? >> >> FWIW, I'm not limited to any legacy ties; in fact, my project is aimed at >> pushing the newer, "DC-sanctioned" ideas forward, so I suspect in my case >> using an XML serialization that validates against http://purl.org/dc/terms/ >> is probably sufficient (whether that's RDF or not doesn't matter at this >> point). >> >> So, back to the other part of the question: has anybody seen a MODS <—> >> DCTERMS crosswalk in the wild? It looks like there's a lot of similarity >> between the two, but before I go too deep down that rabbit hole, I'd like to >> make sure someone else hasn't already experienced that, erm, joy. >> >> MJ >>
