Lossless MARC Mapping

Lossless MARC Mapping ALA Midwinter Seattle 2013 MARC Formats Transition IG

Diane Hillmann

Is MARC Dead?

• The communication format is very dead (based on standards no longer updated)

• The semantics are not dead o  They represent the distillation of decades of

descriptive experience o As we move into a more machine-assisted world, our

old concerns about the size of our legacy can be addressed

o  Taking the legacy records with us should be based on solutions developed using open and transparent strategies

‘Lossy’ vs. ‘Lossless’ MARC Mapping

•  ‘Lossy’ means that some information gets lost in transition o  Loss can also occur intentionally, e.g. when pre-

selection of preferred elements is made

• Current mapping strategies are based on o One-time, inflexible, programmatic methods that

effectively hide the process from consumers § This practice makes it difficult for community

members to effectively respond to decisions made behind the curtain or to contribute to better maps

A Better Strategy

• The decision to set up the MARC21rdf data was to provide the possibility of transparent mapping by data providers at many levels

• This strategy is based on mapping all of MARC – not a selection o  Filtering accomplished by data consumers, who know

best what they need o Meeting the potential for widespread use of data

mapped from MARC depends on putting data out without assuming we know what other people need

Libraries as Data Publishers

• Data from library ‘publishers’ should look like an American supermarket—lots of choices, with decisions made by consumers o Right now we seem to be operating as Soviet

bakeries (“we don’t care what you want, we know what you need”) § This stifles innovation and continues to treat

libraries as passive consumers § This is not what open linked data is supposed to

be doing for us

A Resource, WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/title/linked-data-evolving-the-web-into-a-global-data-space/oclc/704257552

A Resource, MARC21 https://catalog.library.cornell.edu/

marc21rdf.info http://marc21rdf.info/elements/2XX/M260__a

marc21rdf.info http://marc21rdf.info/elements/2XX/M260__a

Definition: Place of publication and any additions to the name of a place, including an address...

tag: 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint) ) ind1: # (Not applicable or No information provided or Earliest available publisher) ind2: # (no caption) sub: a (Place of publication, distribution, etc.)

Search for Place of Publication (1) http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/search?sq=Place+of+Publication&commit=Search+Element+Sets

Search for Place of Publication (2) http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/search?sq=Place+of+Publication&commit=Search+Element+Sets

RDA Place of Publication (Manifestation) http://rdvocab.info/Elements/placeOfPublicationManifestation

RDA Place of Publication http://rdvocab.info/Elements/placeOfPublication

FRBRer Place of Publication http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/P3057

ISBD has Place of Publication... http://iflastandards.info/ns/isbd/elements/P1016

How Does this Strategy Fit?

• Mapping as a service o Maps continually updated o Openly available o Easily distributable

• Publishing & Consuming systems o Need to work in tandem to enhance and improve data o  The methods to do this are not new, but are not well

understood in traditional libraries (to some extent because of their continuing emphasis on ‘records’)

M21 Level 0

RDF map of “audience” attribute

ex:Resource - m21:M008MU22 - m21t:commonaud#j

My Resource (has) Target audience of Music “juvenile”

My Work (has) Intended audience “juvenile”

My Resource (has) Target audience “juvenile”

RDA

Level 0

MARC 21

My Creative work (has) audience “juvenile” Schema.org

My Resource (has) audience “juvenile” Dublin Core

ISBD My Resource has note on use or audience “juvenile”

M 21 triple

Let the machine to do the work

The Place of Publication http://goo.gl/maps/FaHJ

Questions?

Diane Hillmann Metadata.Maven@gmail.com Metadata Management Associates http://managemetadata.com