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:
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
- Identifiers poll result: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OlsVIEpd674YqvfYw4nbDpF0ouIQrQ6VFc5zPxTt0o8/edit#gid=650284848
- 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