Thanks again, Diane. Here's a follow-up for the collective wisdom:
Let's say I wanted to use a DC record with Marc relators as well as another set
of my own relators where I define my own fields that extend DC fields. I'm
guessing the resulting xml document would look like
<dc
xmlns:dcterms='http://purl.org/dc/terms/'
xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'
xmlns:marcrel='http://[appropriate_rdf_doc]'
xmlns:myrel='http://[my_own_rdf_doc]'
>
<dcterms:creator>Jane Creator</dcterms:creator>
<marcrel:ILL>Joe Illustrator</marcrel:ILL>
<myown:XYZ>Mystery Person</myown:XYZ>
</dc>
What I'm wondering is maybe this is extending DC a bit too far and I should use
another standard like MODS or something else. The reason I'm using DC is that
the software I'm working with has dublin core support "built-in." I'm trying
to create xml documents that will describe images in a fedora repository. Our
metadata librarian and I are trying to put together a list of fields, and DC +
Marc seemed a logical place to start.
thoughts?
...adam
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Diane I. Hillmann
Sent: Fri 6/18/2010 9:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] dc xml with marc qualifiers
Adam:
I think you're correct about the legality of that, but I'm the wrong
person to advise you on the technical stuff. I'm sure someone else from
this group could steer you right, though.
Diane
On 6/17/10 5:38 PM, Adam Wead wrote:
> Thanks, Diane. I was looking over those links as well but getting 502 Bad
> Gateway errors. Maybe that's because of what you were saying about LC pulling
> them down.
>
> I did re-read some examples from
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/marcrel-ex/
>
> If I understand this correctly, and I use marc relators that sub-properties
> of existing dc fields, I could do something like:
>
> <dc xmlns:dcterms='http://purl.org/dc/terms/'
> xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance'>
> <dcterms:creator>Jane Creator</dcterms:creator>
> <marcrel:ILL>Joe Illustrator</marcrel:ILL>
> </dc>
>
> Illustrator is defined as a sub-property of creator. Although the above
> document doesn't strike me as legal. Don't I need to define the marc
> relation in a namespace somewhere? Or does the marcrel get nested in the
> dcterms:creator element?
>
> Thanks in advance for the help...
>
> best,
>
> ...adam
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Diane I. Hillmann
> Sent: Thu 6/17/2010 5:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] dc xml with marc qualifiers
>
> Adam:
>
> Dublin Core actually dealt with this about five years ago and has a
> section in its guidelines about the issue:
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/appendix_roles.shtml
>
> There has also been a fair amount of discussion on this on the
> id.loc.gov list, because LC has pulled down some of the original links
> as they've started putting more data on that site, and now there's
> really no record of the information they had set up during the time the
> work with them and DCMI was done.
>
> If it's of any interest, the RDA roles are built using this earlier work
> as a template, e.g., with the roles as properties, not attributes
> (http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/4.html).
>
> In any case, I'm thinking that your solution will be problematic, at a
> number of levels. It won't be standard DC, for one thing.
>
> Diane Hillmann
>
>
> On 6/17/10 4:51 PM, Adam Wead wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a question... is it possible to use the dcterms element, but have an
>> attribute that uses a different qualifier, like Marc? So an element
>> like<dcterms:creator> could be qualified with a marc relator
>> like<dcterms:creator marc_qualifier="Composer">
>>
>> This is probably a stupid question and I'm guessing this is not possible
>> without doing it using rdf or something. My xml schema knowledge is really
>> rusty.
>>
>> anyway, thanks in advance...
>>
>> ...adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Rock & Roll: (noun) African American slang dating back to the early 20th
Century. In the early 1950s, the term came to be used to describe a new form of
music, steeped in the blues, rhythm & blues, country and gospel. Today, it
refers to a wide variety of popular music -- frequently music with an edge and
attitude, music with a good beat and --- often --- loud guitars.© 2005 Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.
This communication is a confidential and proprietary business communication. It
is intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s). If this
communication is received in error, please contact the sender and delete this
communication.
