Having read the rest of this thread, I find that nothing that's been
said changes my initial gut reaction on reading this question: DO NOT
USE DCTERMS. It's vocabulary is Just Plain Inadequate, and not only
for esoteric cases like the Alternative Chronological Designation of
First Issue or Part
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Having read the rest of this thread, I find that nothing that's been
said changes my initial gut reaction on reading this question: DO NOT
USE DCTERMS. It's vocabulary is Just Plain Inadequate, and not only
for esoteric
On 4 May 2010 13:19, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Having read the rest of this thread, I find that nothing that's been
said changes my initial gut reaction on reading this question: DO NOT
USE DCTERMS. It's
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Oh, what is the solution when using it in RDF?
I've been using the Bibliographic Ontology myself:
http://bibliontology.com/
Lots of stuff in there for journals, etc ... and reuse of other
vocabularies like event, foaf,
I'd just like to say a word of thanks for everyone who has contributed so far
on this thread. The viewpoints raised certainly help clarify at least my
understanding of some of the issues and concepts involved.
MARCXML is a step in the right direction. MODS goes even further. Neither
really
On 5/4/2010 9:54 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
BIBO, which many people seem to like, has almost 200 data
elements and classes, and is greatly lacking in some areas (e.g. maps,
music).
What makes BIBO useful, in my limited experience, is that it integrates
commonly used ontologies like FOAF and
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Ross, I think that got mangled in the sending -- either that, or it's
some strange format that I've never seen before. That said, I am
tremendously impressed by all the information you obtained there.
What software did you
Let me give another example: the Open Library API returns a JSON tree, eg.
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL1M.json
But what schema is this? And if it doesn't conform to a standard schema,
does that make it useless? If it were based on DCTERMS, at least I'd have a
reference at
No apologies required — your dissection of the (very important) differences
between MODS and DCTERMS, both in concept and format, was extremely
enlightening and helpful; as was all the other input.
Any misunderstandings are much more my fault for not being clearer when Ross
asked what my use
Hi MJ,
- for that matter, is there a good example of how to properly
serialize DCTERMS for eg. a converted MARC/MODS record in XML (or
RDF/XML)? I see, eg. http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-rdf-xml/
which has been replaced by http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/
but I'm not sure if the
I'm still confused about all this stuff too, but I've often see the
oai_dc format (for OAI/PMH I think?) used as a 'standard' way to expose
simple DC attributes.
One thing I was confused about was whether the oai_dc format _required_
the use of the old style DC uri's, or also allowed the use
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 m...@suhonos.ca wrote:
Thanks for your comments, guys. I was
dcterms so so terribly lossy that it would be a shame to reduce MARC to it.
This is *precisely* the other half of my rationale — a shame? Why? If MARC is
the mind prison that some purport it to be, then let's see what a system built
devoid of MARC, but based on the best alternative we have
NB: When Karen Coyle, Eric Morgan, and Roy Tennant all reply to your thread
within half an hour of each other, you know you've hit the big time. Time to
retire young I think.
That would be Eric *Lease* Morgan — oh my god, you're right! I'm already
losing data! It *is* insidious! I
On 5/3/2010 1:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
1. MARC the data format -- too rigid, needs to go away
2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data
elements, some well-coded data (not all); unfortunately trapped in #1
For the sake of my own understanding, I would love an
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:40 PM, MJ Suhonos m...@suhonos.ca wrote:
Yes, even to me as a librarian but not a cataloguer, many (most?) of these
elements seem like overkill. I have no doubt there is an edge-case for
having this fine level of descriptive detail, but I wonder:
a) what proportion
...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Roy
Tennant
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:15 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MODS and DCTERMS
I would even argue with the statement very detailed, well over 1,000
different data elements, some well-coded data (not all). There are only 11
(yes, eleven
, How can I get it? are
usually given in the associated MARC holdings record.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of Roy Tennant
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:15 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MODS
in the
associated MARC holdings record.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Roy Tennant
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:15 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MODS and DCTERMS
I would even argue
On May 3, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Aaron Rubinstein wrote:
1. MARC the data format -- too rigid, needs to go away
2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data
elements, some well-coded data (not all); unfortunately trapped in #1
For the sake of my own understanding, I would
20 matches
Mail list logo
