Linked data presentation to AALL 2012 boston


Published on

Presented at the program: Law Libraries and the Semantic Web, Monday, 8:30-10:00 at the American Association of Law Libraries in Boston, MA.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Some conflicts here
  • This way of handling roles should be usable in either XML or RDF (essential for RDF)
  • This is an example of one of the mapping patterns identified for MARC21 00X attributes. In this case, up to four codes for illustrations can be used for specific categories of resource, and there is no significance in the order of the codes.This is an RDF graph of the mapping. The four Level 0 properties corresponding to the attributes are mapped as sub-properties of a generic attribute for the category of material, which in turn is mapped as a sub-property of a generic attribute for all categories of material.
  • This is another example of a mapping pattern for MARC21 00x attributes where up to four codes can be used for information about the relief of a cartographic resource. The order of the codes and the attributes used is significant, with the most prominent form of relief recorded in the first attribute, and the fourth most prominent, if any, recorded in the last attribute.This is a partial RDF graph of the mapping, showing only the first Level 0 attribute in each category of resource. Each is mapped as a sub-property of a generic attribute for the category of material and also as a sub-property of a generic attribute for the first, most prominent attribute. Each generic attribute in turn is mapped as a sub-property of a generic attribute for all categories of material.The graph omits the mappings from the second, third, and fourth Level 0 attributes.
  • Linked data presentation to AALL 2012 boston

    1. 1. Thriving in an Open World
    2. 2.  Traditional cataloging considers identification via text adequate (for physical things mostly)  A ‘record’ aggregates statements, but the identity of the resource being described is often squishy (a title? Title plus author? ISBN?)  Digital identity must be significantly clearer (a URI/URL?) because immediate access is expected Our entry into the digital world is forcing us to look more carefully at our practices AALL Boston 7/23/2012 2
    3. 3.  Requires creating and aggregating data in a broader context  There is no one ‘correct’ record to be made from this, no objective ‘truth’ This approach is different from the cataloging tradition  BUT, the focus on vocabularies is one we can work with In the SemWeb world vocabularies are more complex than the thesauri we know AALL Boston 7/23/2012 3
    4. 4.  XML assumes a closed world (domain), usually defined by a schema:  "We know all of the data describing this resource. The single description must be a valid document according to our schema. The data must be valid.”  XMLs document model provides a neat equivalence to a metadata record’ AALL Boston 7/23/2012 4
    5. 5.  RDF assumes an open world:  "Theres an infinite amount of unknown data describing this resource yet to be discovered. It will come from an infinite number of providers. There will be an infinite number of descriptions. Those descriptions must be consistent."  RDFs statement-oriented data model has no notion of record’ (rather, statements can be aggregated for a fuller description of a resource) AALL Boston 7/23/2012 5
    6. 6.  Bridge the XML and RDF worlds Ensure ability to map between RDA and other element sets Provide a sound platform for extension of RDA Vocabularies into new and specialized domains Consider methods for expressing AACR2 structures in technical ways to ease the pain of transition to RDA AALL Boston 7/23/2012 6
    7. 7.  RDA Properties declared in two separate hierarchies:  An ‘unconstrained’ vocabulary, with no explicit relationship to FRBR entities  A subset of classes, properties and subproperties with FRBR entities as ‘domains’ Pros: retained usability in or out of libraries; better mapping to/from non-FRBR vocabularies Cons: still seems too complex to many SemWeb implementers (many using BIBO) AALL Boston 7/23/2012 7
    8. 8.  The ‘bounded’ properties should be seen as the official JSC- defined RDA Application Profile for libraries  What’s still lacking is the addition of the necessary constraints: datatypes, cardinality, associated value vocabularies Extensions and mapping should be built from the unconstrained properties  Unconstrained vocabularies necessary for use in domains where FRBR not assumed or inappropriate  Mapping from vocabularies not using the FRBR model directly to ones that do (and back) creates serious problems for the ‘Web of Data’ AALL Boston 7/23/2012 8
    9. 9. Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship) Semantic Web Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity The Simple Case: Library Applications One Property-- One FRBR Entity AALL Boston 7/23/2012 9
    10. 10. Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship) Semantic Web Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity Library Applications The Not-So-Simple Case: One Property—more than One FRBR Entity AALL Boston 7/23/2012 10
    11. 11.  In 2005, the DC Usage Board worked with LC to build a formal representation of the MARC Relators so that these terms could be used with DC  This work provided a template for the registration of the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I) and, by extension, the other RDA relationships Role and relationship properties are registered at the same level as elements, rather than as attributes (as MARC does with relators, and RDA does in its XML schemas) AALL Boston 7/23/2012 11
    12. 12.  RDA (and MARC 21) include pre-coordinated, aggregated statements that have traditionally been handled as a whole, ex.: Publication, Distribution, Manufacture and Production statements, etc.  These were originally pulled together for the efficient display on catalog cards  Some users will prefer to deal with the issue at the display level, by using separate properties and configuring the display to manipulate the order  To deal with retrospective, transitional and (some) prospective needs, we must address the desire to continue this practice AALL Boston 7/23/2012 12
    13. 13. Pre-coordinated Statements: Structure Aggregated Statement (no domain or range) Domain: FRBR Entity Aggregated Statement Subproperty Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype) Range: [Specific] Encoding Scheme (Subclass)General Property (no domain or range) Subproperty AALL Boston 7/23/2012 13
    14. 14. Pre-coordinated Statements: Example Publication Statement (no domain or range) Domain: Manifestation Publication Statement (Manifestation) Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype) Range: Publication Statement Encoding Scheme (Subclass)Place of publication (no domain or range) Place of publication (Manifestation) AALL Boston 7/23/2012 14
    15. 15.  The inclusion of unconstrained properties provides a path for extension of RDA into specialized library communities and non-library communities  They may have a different notion of how FRBR ‘aggregates’ (For example, a colorized version of a film may be viewed as a separate work)  They may not wish to use FRBR at all  They may have additional, domain-specific properties to add, that could benefit from a relationship to the RDA properties AALL Boston 7/23/2012 15
    16. 16. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScript AALL Boston 7/23/2012 16
    17. 17. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScriptKidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook Extension using Unconstrained Properties AALL Boston 7/23/2012 17
    18. 18. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScrip t KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBookKidLit:adaptedAsAChapterBook Extension using Unconstrained Properties AALL Boston 7/23/2012 18
    19. 19.  Building relationships between vocabularies is not necessarily a proprietary activity or tied to particular applications (not ‘crosswalking’ as we have understood that term) provides a beginning point for mapping library data that is easily shared and modified to meet a variety of needs New approaches go beyond ‘sameAs’ and suggest the potential for more granular, nuanced relationships Mapping in this context retains the original data ‘as is’ and provides a view through the lens of another structure (with minimal loss of richness) AALL Boston 7/23/2012 19
    20. 20. AALL Boston 7/23/2012 20
    21. 21. AALL Boston 7/23/2012 21
    22. 22. Property Detail: Relator codes Tag: 100 (Main entry-Personal Name) Ind2: # (no caption) Sub: 4 (Relator code)AALL Boston 7/23/2012 22
    23. 23. RDF graph of 00X mapping pattern for an attribute with more than one valueand no significance in the order of values AALL Boston 7/23/2012 23
    24. 24. Partial RDF graph of 00X mapping pattern for two or more attributes withmore than one value and significance in the order of values AALL Boston 7/23/2012 24
    25. 25.  Our big investment is (and has always been) in our data, not our systems  Over many changes in format of materials, we’ve always struggled to keep our focus on the data content that endures, regardless of differences in data management strategy or presentation format  We have made good progress in moving towards our common future, but we can’t be afraid to change, or afraid to failAALL Boston 7/23/2012 25
    26. 26. Thank you! Questions? Contact info: metadata.maven Metadata Matters: http://managemet Boston 7/23/2012 26