630 subject added entry--uniform title

[CECSpecialistI]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J9eYXxnsEBiuzG4PcrPNL1Fk5JUQGLBAmAJGp6gtp5Q/edit#gid=806468288

[szapoun]

Regarding the mapping of $0 and $1

Τhis decision covers the case that the object of the triple statement is an RDA entity. It does not cover the case that the object of the triple statement is NOT an RDA entity.

The 630 field most probably will refer to a Work. But there is the possibility that there is a v-x-y-z subdivision. In this case the object of the statement is not a Work, but a concept. Here is an example of a Work with an $x subdivision: Bible--Versions, Jehovah's Witnesses.

Assuming that a $1 (real world object) exists, then an object property is needed to relate the subject entity and the object one. Concepts are not RDA entities and as a result there are not object properties in RDA that have as a range a Concept.

During discussion, @GordonDunsire suggested the use of the datatype property P10256 "has subject" property. RDA adopts an open-world assumption regarding the value of datatype properties. IMHO, this means that the datatype property takes a literal value, and ignores if this value is a plain literal or a stringified URI.

I need to check a little bit further. I will shortly describe the why, because there is a chance I have misunderstood something. In the local Wikibase we are building at the NLG, whenever we want to have a list in a field, the list values must be objects. And wikibase does not accept to have a list in a datatype property. I assume that this is NOT a Wikibase thing, but an RDF/linked data thing. The same thing applies not only to subjects, but also to controlled vocabularies, e.g., rda content. Values in RDA content are represented as instances of skos:concepts. Yet, we cannot link with object property because there is only a datatype property. So even though we have the RWO we will end up using its label only!

To my understanding, this has other implications relating to multilingual displays of data. But this is another issue :)

Nevertheless, I will check with our IT colleague.

[szapoun]

Relators and relationships

The 630 does not have an $i subfield, so the exact type of relationship may be expressed using $4. I am trying to include this in the mapping by adding $4 URIs as conditions. Are you OK with it?

I cannot imagine how the $e can be used in 630. I am not sure if I map it or not. I checked the relator terms and the only case I found that it could be possibly used in 630 is 'depicted'. Even though I do not believe that this is a common case, I assume that there is the possibility that a work is depicted in another work. Not sure.

[szapoun]

Subfields related to Expressions & Manifestations I need your OK on the following assumptions

In my first pass mappings I assume that the existence of any of the subfields $l $o $r $s designates that the linked entity in 630 is an expression.

$f pertains to Manifestation

[AdamSchiff]

$f is date of expression usually in RDA access points.

In current RDA $r is usually work, but in new RDA musical key is expression information. $r in most work access points will represent key of representative expression, which is a work attribute.

Adam

Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 aschiff @ uw.edu

---

From: Sofia Zapounidou @.> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:35:09 PM To: uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: Re: [uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA] 630 subject added entry--uniform title (Issue #242)

Subfields related to Expressions & Manifestations I need your OK on the following assumptions

In my first pass mappings I assume that the existence of any of the subfields $l $o $r $s designates that the linked entity in 630 is an expression.

$f pertains to Manifestation

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/issues/242*issuecomment-1283413279__;Iw!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!kRfpUtbLZl-EFQmqZgqlluTNh9I5h1WmEi3AIL8AFaA8EjSL7YVTAlcxcYGkdd8ZgsbQwwbeI6xLPyDDxV8ewHY$, or unsubscribe [github.com]https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFBVB7LXRBECWS4Y5JPJL3WD5273ANCNFSM5IXMWKPA__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!kRfpUtbLZl-EFQmqZgqlluTNh9I5h1WmEi3AIL8AFaA8EjSL7YVTAlcxcYGkdd8ZgsbQwwbeI6xLPyDDrtx1dks$. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[CECSpecialistI]

Relators and relationships

The 630 does not have an $i subfield, so the exact type of relationship may be expressed using $4. I am trying to include this in the mapping by adding $4 URIs as conditions. Are you OK with it?

I cannot imagine how the $e can be used in 630. I am not sure if I map it or not. I checked the relator terms and the only case I found that it could be possibly used in 630 is 'depicted'. Even though I do not believe that this is a common case, I assume that there is the possibility that a work is depicted in another work. Not sure.

Visual works depict other visual works, which might make $e depicted correct, but I haven't seen it used (yet)

[GordonDunsire]

630 can map to Work (as drafted) and to skos:Concept or a similar class; the work is derived from $a, etc. (as a uniform title) and the concept term is derived from $a, etc. and the subdivisions.

The canonical RDA property rdaw:P10256 is used for a subject concept; there is no range, so it can have an object/thing or datatype/string value.

rdawd:P10256 (the datatype property) is used for a subject string.

[szapoun]

@CECSpecialistI @cspayne

I have updated the 630 google sheet to include Gordon's discussion paper

In my mapping I have used the $4 to provide mappings to has subject subproperties. If this mapping is not used in other 6XX fields , Cypress can simply ignore.

The only mapping I have not finished in 630 relates to $0 and $1 because I think the discussion is still open, right?

[pennylenger]

@CECSpecialistI @cspayne

I have updated the 630 google sheet to include Gordon's discussion paper

In my mapping I have used the $4 to provide mappings to has subject subproperties. If this mapping is not used in other 6XX fields , Cypress can simply ignore.

The only mapping I have not finished in 630 relates to $0 and $1 because I think the discussion is still open, right?

Hi Sofia, thank you for updating the Google Sheet. The group decided not to map $e or $4 values found in 6XX fields. And I found almost no $4 in 630.

[szapoun]

@pennylenger Hi, Penny. No problem with that. Most of the times tha data itself guides the mapping process :) If you have any questions on the 630 mapping, please tell me.