search

blunalucero / MODS-RDF

MODS RDF is an RDF ontology for MODS. As MODS is an XML schema for a bibliographic element set, MODS RDF is an expression of that element set in RDF.
7 stars 4 forks source link

Location (Holdings) #22

Closed melanieWacker closed 9 years ago

melanieWacker commented 9 years ago

MODS XML allows for fairly detailed encoding of holdings information in which includes varies levels of structure. See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/location.html http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/location.html The current MODS RDF draft carries much of this over, but the structure is simplified. See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#location http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#aggregator

Other detailed information that can be encoded in MODS XML as attributes: 1) type attribute under physicalLocation with suggested values: current, discovery, former, creation 2) url@access with enumerated values: preview, raw object, object in context 3) url@usage with enumerated values: primary display, primary

Questions: 1) Do we agree with the current MODS/RDF approach going forward? 2) Are any of the attributes noted about worth preserving?

mjhan3 commented 9 years ago

This may not be that important, but how about copy number and barcode of the item? we recently transformed our holdings data to MODS as below.

IU Oak Street Facility [request only] K1 .N66 1 30112027748349 v.26(1991)

Myung-Ja "MJ" Han Metadata Librarian 220 Main Library University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 1408 W. Gregory Dr. (MC-522) Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-9515 (Main Library) 217-244-7809 (Grainger)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:01 PM, melanieWacker notifications@github.com wrote:

MODS XML allows for fairly detailed encoding of holdings information in which includes varies levels of structure. See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/location.html http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/location.html The current MODS RDF draft carries much of this over, but the structure is simplified. See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#location http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#aggregator

Other detailed information that can be encoded in MODS XML as attributes: 1) type attribute under physicalLocation with suggested values: current, discovery, former, creation 2) url@access with enumerated values: preview, raw object, object in context 3) url@usage with enumerated values: primary display, primary

Questions: 1) Do we agree with the current MODS/RDF approach going forward? 2) Are any of the attributes noted about worth preserving?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/22.

raydAtLC commented 9 years ago

For what it’s worth, I pulled together information from a paper (unpublished) on BIBFRAME holdings. It is about a year old, so it may not be completely up to date, nor am I, and Rebecca may have updates to this.

In BIBFRAME we have the concept of HeldItem and HeldMaterial.

Properties for HeldItem:

• barcode • circulationStatus • copyNumber • copyNote • itemId • shelfMark

Subproperties of shelfMark:

• shelfMarkDdc • shelfMarkLcc • shelfMarkUdc

Properties for HeldMaterial: • accessCondition • acquisitionSource • enumerationAndChronology • heldBy • holdingFor • lendingPolicy • reproductionPolicy • retentionPolicy • subLocation

melanieWacker commented 9 years ago

Mentioned during 10/3 call": Bibliographic holdings in Schema.org http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer

melanieWacker commented 9 years ago

Regarding copy number and barcode (MJ's post): Since these are not elements in MODS XML, but are properties in BIBFRAME -- I think we should recommend using properties from an outside vocabulary (such as BIBFRAME) rather than defining our own.

mjhan3 commented 9 years ago

I think that is a good approach!

Myung-Ja "MJ" Han Metadata Librarian 220 Main Library University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 1408 W. Gregory Dr. (MC-522) Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-9515 (Main Library) 217-244-7809 (Grainger)

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:52 AM, melanieWacker notifications@github.com wrote:

Regarding copy number and barcode (MJ's post): Since these are not elements in MODS XML, but are properties in BIBFRAME -- I think we should recommend using properties from an outside vocabulary (such as BIBFRAME) rather than defining our own.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/22#issuecomment-62164631.

raydAtLC commented 9 years ago

Barcode is in BIBFRAME but copyNumber is not. (itemId is.)

From: melanieWacker [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:52 AM To: blunalucero/MODS-RDF Cc: Denenberg, Ray Subject: Re: [MODS-RDF] Location (Holdings) (#22)

Regarding copy number and barcode (MJ's post): Since these are not elements in MODS XML, but are properties in BIBFRAME -- I think we should recommend using properties from an outside vocabulary (such as BIBFRAME) rather than defining our own.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/22#issuecomment-62164631.

raydAtLC commented 9 years ago

I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to define the MODS RDF holding vocabulary using a mix of namespaces.

In MJ’s example:

1 30112027748349

Illustrates a use case for copyNumber and barcode, so why don't we propose these for addition to MODS?

rguenther52 commented 9 years ago

I'm not sure what happened to copyNumber and why it was left out of the BIBFRAME vocabulary-- it may have been an oversight.

raydAtLC commented 9 years ago

Damn github strips angle brackets and everything between.

Asterisk replaces angle brackets in my above note:

note displayLabel="Copy Number">1 /note note displayLabel="Barcode" 30112027748349 /note

mjhan3 commented 9 years ago

Yes, I found it interesting - there is copyNote, but no cioyNumber.

Myung-Ja "MJ" Han Metadata Librarian 220 Main Library University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 1408 W. Gregory Dr. (MC-522) Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-9515 (Main Library) 217-244-7809 (Grainger)

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Rebecca Guenther notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm not sure what happened to copyNumber and why it was left out of the BIBFRAME vocabulary-- it may have been an oversight.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/22#issuecomment-62167959.

raydAtLC commented 9 years ago

I give up. (I'm doing something wrong.)

rguenther52 commented 9 years ago

In MODS when we added the holdings information, we were trying to find a simple way to express the information that isn't too granular-- i.e. a textual holdings statement. The subfield in MARC that has copy number is mapped to shelfLocator, so is part of the string. We would have to decide whether it warrants a separate subelement in MODS.

mixterj commented 9 years ago

When/if we are looking to add more terms to the MODS Holdings vocabulary I think we should consult both the BIBFRAME work as well as the work that Dan Scott has done in modeling holdings using Schema.org: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer

mjhan3 commented 9 years ago

Here are MODS holdings that mapped to schema.org. fyi, not all holdings record have .

IU Oak Street Facility [request only] K1 .N66 1 30112027748349 v.26(1991)

sc:offers sc:Offer sc:availableAtOrFrom sc:Place sc:nameOak Street Facility [request only]/sc:name /sc:Place /sc:availableAtOrFrom sc:itemOffered sc:IndividualProduct sc:skuK1 .N66/sc:sku sc:serialNumber30112027748349/sc:serialNumber sc:productIDCopy Number: 1/sc:productID sc:descriptionv.26(1991)/sc:description /sc:IndividualProduct /sc:itemOffered /sc:Offer /sc:offers

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeff Mixter notifications@github.com wrote:

When/if we are looking to add more terms to the MODS Holdings vocabulary I think we should consult both the BIBFRAME work as well as the work that Dan Scott has done in modeling holdings using Schema.org: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/22#issuecomment-62172609.

melanieWacker commented 9 years ago

Agreement reached during 11-07-14 working group call. See meeting notes: https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/wiki/MODS-RDF-working-group-call-11.7.14