MODS and RDF Call: 2018-10-29
Time: 9 AM PDT / Noon EDT
Call-In Info: 712-775-7035 (Access Code: 960009)
Documents/Homework:
Mapping recommendations (original)
Mapping recommendations (clean, sent for comment)
Moderator: @Eben English
Notetaker: TK (Etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/MODS_and_RDF_Call__2018-10-29)
Attendees:
Melanie Wacker (Columbia)
Julie Hardesty (Indiana)
Emily Porter (Emory)
Eben English (BPL)
Agenda (with notes)
Feedback Form Responses (no new entries as of 10/29)
Email Responses (no new entries as of 10/29)
Samvera Connect Session: Slides
small audience but interested
question about process for requesting minting predicates
mapping and scope is complex so implementing might seem daunting to community
maybe ask for stories to be shared at next Samvera Connect? (Avalon, Northwestern)
Action items from last meeting:
Add comments to recordInfo direct mapping DONE
leave direct mapping as it is with comment about technical problem
minted object updated to show minted metadata object
Update recordInfo minted object mapping to use minted metadata object DONE
Add bf:variantType to <mods:title> minted examples DONE
bibframe variant added to MODS title for uniform, etc titles
Remove instances of skos:exactMatch and skos:closeMatch where appropriate; replace with owl:sameAs and rdfs:seeAlso DONE
Inquire about bibliotek-o status DONE
bibliotek-o status checked - project is dead and shouldn't be used
Outstanding Comments on Recommendations document
<mods:title> (minted object)
"supplied" designation
bibliotek-o is deprecated, we should not use these
BF has no support for this concept
Could simply recommend that supplied status be indicated by brackets in title value and/or explanatory note
Could use opaquenamespace
can't recommend to use brackets because RDA guidelines so there isn't really a solution; recommend to follow content standards being used - DACS and RDA have different recommendations
Eben removing bibliotek-o and add note at beginning of section regarding content standard; use skos:note to indicate in Example 5 (p. 66)
bf:Title class used but not bf properties within that class
helps with consistency across recommendations to use same properties (across simple and complex); also more generally usable beyond BF-centered cases; implementations can make use of BF properteis within Title class if desired but showing that it's not necessary
MODS note
having noteType as subclass helps with interoperability (everyone using the same note type) but BF not creating controlled vocab so there are no type URIs to use here
simpler to keep note types as text here
keep example as is with text and add info about best practice is to create subclass for note type
mods subject
pre-coordinated subject headings questions
we approached this is a FAST-ish way to explode pre-coordinated subjects but could be problematic if there are multiple pre-coord subjects
FAST philosophy is that pre-coord isn't helpful to begin with anyway
Julie will try Example 7 using MADS/RDF and see what happens
FAST vs LCSH - how comparable are they? should be FAST equivalents except for when there are free-form combinations in LCSH that aren't as easily automated
FAST approach is faceted application applying subject pieces as you need them without worrying about order and combination
also need better documentation at beginning of this section
geographic coordinates as subject p. 95 example 12
comment supplies really complex recommendation that requires even more object minting
DCMI box and point specs are getting old (2006) but not sure if they are out of date or not
Samvera Geopredicates WG documentation: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3s6m1gxi006N3p1anBpbmZuOEU
might be schema.org predicates that can help (schema:latitude, schema:longitude, schema:box) - might be more accessible
expected to be used with coordinate and space objects instead of place objects so that might be problem or complication
could stick with edm:Place class only; could use rdau class for geographic object: http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60109
examples work now, information is all there, machine readable if you know content standard being used, programming logic needed to use info
maybe keep example as is and add information at beginning that there are other options for providing coordinate-based information depending on needs
TODOs:
Submit opaque predicates to URI WG
Next meeting: Monday November 26