MODS and RDF Call: 2018-03-19
Time: 9 AM PDT / Noon EDT
Call-In Info: 712-775-7035 (Access Code: 960009)
Homework: White paper comments and Collaboration document spreadsheet clean-up
Moderator: @Eben English
Primary notetaker: @Juliet Hardesty (Etherpad link: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/MODS_and_RDF_Call__2018-03-19)
Attendees:
@Eben English (BPL)
@Melanie Wacker (CUL)
@Juliet Hardesty (Indiana University)
@Emily Porter
@soriordan
@ksgerrity (Amherst College)
Jennifer Liss (Indiana University)
Agenda with meeting notes:
Review final documentation
White paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ffCyIirUkESLefBehafbacsLb_Rq7KJbTxxeoQCyLpw/edit#
Action items from last time:
Outstanding & New
Review all sections and be prepared to address any open comments from the document (all reviewers)
<mods:subject> could use a another set of eyes. DONE
direct mapping examples need reviewed but they are done - Everyone
might need more topical or name subject examples
Mapping issues
Eben contacted LC about MARC Relators (yay, Eben!) - both literals and URIs are allowed as value!
helps us with direct mapping of name and place of publication
opaque vs. modsrdf
there will be application profile from MODS to BIBFRAME - modsrdf is going to be an extension only off of this for a few properties not covered by BF
maybe change out modsrdf to opaque and then review when modsrdf extension is published
is use of opaque indicating that predicate doesn't exist or is there something literally available at opaquenamespace.org? no, don't think any of these properties exist
these predicates need to be requested still - do this with opaque or with Samvera Community Vocab Manager?
not sure how many opaque predicates are in white paper now
Property: digitalOrigin, extent, accessionNumber, accessionNumberFormer, barcode, nameOrder, Class: archivalSeries, bibliographicSeries
MODSRDF Property: recordOrigin, shelfLocator
Samvera Vocab Manager isn't going to support Classes to start
might need to look again for those classes
didn't use BF for some reason - maybe it didn't allow literals? likely the reason
Julie will double-check all opaque and modsrdf properties and classes - no modsrdf or madsrdf properties or classes; some suggestions for opaque properties and classes
look into BF again for classes to see if literals are possible - DONE (no classes for series)
RDAU vocab - might also be something there - DONE (no classes at all)
BF - need to check RDF file since domain and range info on website might not actually reflect definition (recommendation but not necessarily required)
Eben will switch out modsrdf predicates to opaque in white paper DONE
Update namespaces table after mappings are all copied over (Emily)
wait until opaque/modsrdf review complete since namespaces might be removed
Document instances of prior polls and community feedback (e.g. identifiers) (all reviewers)
title DONE
extent (https://goo.gl/forms/ROMklm8isWH3rKzK2 ???) - DONE
identifier
physical collection / digital collection / series (https://goo.gl/forms/Pl6a1ILMlWbMXLGV2) - DONE
physical location / holding info (https://goo.gl/forms/KGymGD9dGURueF4o2) - DONE
Eben will add links if available (even if it's just meeting notes discussing poll results) DONE
Monitor potential to mint predicates through Samvera URI WG (all)
There is now a form for submitting requests: https://github.com/samvera-labs/uri_selection_wg
already discussed in earlier agenda items
Style-related issues
Update TOC to remove links to examples
headings for elements consistent
remove 'curly' quotation marks
formatting for RDAU predicates – canonical URI (rdau:P60057) or lexical URI (rdau:preferredCitation.en)?
lexical URIs more readable, but they don't resolve
use lexical value in examples but include note in optional paragraph if RDAU namespace is used for that MODS element - Eben will add these. DONE
XML elements with long attribute value lists – spacing, indentation, etc.
name - all of the different attributes included make text wrap and make it less readable
Eben will look for style guide but we might just need to make sure we're consistent
Review draft of email announcement and target reviewers/lists
should we create a form like Governance group sent out to gather feedback?
could also try commenting directly on white paper document?
either way we need to archive a draft of white paper
could offer both methods and include note at beginning to say leave comments about specific mappings in comments and leave general/overall comments in form
could send out form with link to white paper so first thing people see is questions on form before approaching white paper
need to include caveat that this is NOT AN ONTOLOGY but is just a recommended mapping - in email already but maybe not visible enough - Eben will update
question about title of white paper - Samvera MODS to RDF Working Group: MODS to RDF Mapping Recommendations
try this out in white paper and email and review at next meeting to see how it feels - Eben will update. DONE
list of places to send - please add to this list - Final Documentation: Community Review
Next meeting:
Monday April 2