Closed melanieWacker closed 9 years ago
Melanie said ‘In an environment moving away from the "record concept" ‘
But I’m not sure I see any such movement in the work we’re doing, it’s still: what is the RDF description corresponding to a MODS record. Call it an RDF description if you don’t like “record” but it’s still a record. So in many cases, a MARC record becomes a MODS record which becomes a MODS RDF description. In those cases I think there should be at least the option to retain in the RDF whatever provenance and record metadata information has been carried over from the MARC record.
It is important to track provenance of the metadata. FYI: BIBFRAME adopted properties for administrative metadata (or whatever you want to call it-- metadata about the description) largely based on MODS recordInfo.
See discussion from Oct. Working Group call: https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/wiki/MODS-RDF-Working-Group-Call-10.03.14
References: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#recordInfo http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#external http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf-primer-2.html#recordInfo From the MODS RDF Primer: "MODS is represented by a property whose range is the class AdminMetadata in the RecordInfo antology."
This ontology basically includes current MODS XML elements, such as descriptionStandard, recordContentSource, and recordIdentifier.
Example:
Questions: 1) Do we agree with this approach going forward? 2) In an environment moving away from the "record concept" -- do all these elements need to be brought over?