A meeting of mindframes

SINOPIA, BIBFRAME & RDA

What we will cover today

What we will not cover today

Sinopia is…

​

• …a linked data creation environment where libraries can:�
• create metadata in a linked data environment without having to set up and maintain tools
• learn best practices related to linked data creation
• explore the idea of cooperative cataloging (linking to shared descriptions and identifiers) in a linked data environment
• contribute feedback and expertise to iterative development of tools for working in a linked data environment

​

In Sinopia, you can…

• Create metadata templates that
• use any ontology serialized as linked data (BF, RDA-RDF, DC, schema.org, etc.)
• mix properties and classes from multiple ontologies in one template
• access multiple value vocabularies through Questioning Authority (QA)
• can reference URIs from repositories of bibliographic data outside Sinopia
• can be re-used by other Sinopia users
• Convert
• Individual descriptions to MARC (restricted to specific templates)
• Export metadata
• In bulk, via bulk download or API as linked data
• To selected ILS’s as MARC data (restricted to specific templates)
• Search for & re-use metadata created through Sinopia templates
• Import metadata for populating templates (eventually)

​

Questions received about Sinopia

Is Sinopia designed to comply with specific encoding standards/ontologies like BIBFRAME?

​

​

Sinopia is an RDF/RDFS editor

• Any ontology that can be expressed as a refinement of RDF can be used in Sinopia
• This includes ontologies such as BIBFRAME, RDA-RDF, DC, CIDOC-CRM
• Sinopia produces valid RDF based on the instructions in the templates created by the user
• It does not validate whether the user is expressing the ontology correctly
• It does validate the RDF to some extent and will soon have available datatypes for literals such as xsd:date

​

Questions received about Sinopia

Is Sinopia designed to be compatible with the RDA and LRM data models / content standards?

​

Sinopia can be used with any data model based on an subject-property-object data model

• yes it can be used with the LRM data model
• yes, it can be used with RDA elements, guidelines, instructions
• Either “Original” RDA or “Official” RDA

Questions received about Sinopia

Does Sinopia validate BIBFRAME data, similar to the way that OCLC Connexion validates MARC data?

OCLC validates:

• invalid elements
• tags, indicators, subfield codes
• invalid data
• Fixed field codes, field length
• mandatory, repeatable

​

Sinopia validates:

• invalid elements
• URIs, literal vs URI, RDF
• invalid data
• Field length in the future (e.g.,for ISBN)
• mandatory, repeatable, ordered

​

Templates act as metadata application profiles (MAPs), modeling the data, restricting value vocabularies, relating input to content standards through links & field labels

​

​

​

Siniopia / BIBFRAME questions

• I’m used to a single data-entry form from the MARC/Connexion environment, but the PCC Sinopia templates split up resource description into three templates--work, instance, item, following the BIBFRAME model.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?  Would it be possible to create a single template in Sinopia that covers Work-Instance-Item?

​

• Actually 5 templates: work, instance, item, admin metadata for the description, local admin metadata
• Cataloging in MARC is the creation of database records; all the data is defined by how it is encoded within that record
• Cataloging in BIBFRAME is the creation of a cluster of statements about a resource; as you fill out values, the template creates triples that describe the relationship in RDF

Why multiple templates?

• One URI
• Other descriptions are blank nodes

​

Why multiple templates?

• Multiple templates
• Each entity has its own URI

Work

<URI>

Instance

<URI>

Item

<URI>

Instance 2

<URI>

Item 2

<URI>

Work

<URI>

Simplifies re-use of others’ metadata

Allows you to ignore metadata irrelevant to you

Item 3

<URI>

RDA & BIBFRAME questions

• RDA as a content standard as applied in Sinopia - focus on PCCMAP.  What about RDA RDF?�
• LD4P as a project opted to start out with BIBFRAME as an ontology
• Developed by the Library of Congress
• Tools & mappings being developed by LC & others—conversion tools, editor
• At that time, there was no equivalent for the RDA element set & no easy way to query it
• While the emphasis has been on the one ontology, LD4P acknowledges that there will be other ontologies used & tool development always keeps this in mind�
• PCC also opted to start with BIBFRAME also before RDA/RDF was available
• Tools for conversion from (and later to) MARC
• RDF editors allowing catalogers to create rdf directly
• Library of Congress is implementing it
• Has not ruled out using other ontologies/data models

​

​

RDA & BIBFRAME questions: PCC & RDA

• PCC templates are based on BIBFRAME 2.0 with “Original” RDA as a content standard
• This means:
• We catalog using RDA guidelines within a BF structure
• We extend BF with RDA properties when relevant and needed (e.g., related works)
• (Aside: we also use BFLC, the Library of Congress local extension to BF & will possibly use other extensions as well)
• PCC has not yet moved to “Official” RDA
• Needs updated LC/PCC policy statements
• Needs updated metadata application profiles (e.g., the BSR, CSR)
• Needs new metadata guidance documents (longer instructions for more complex tasks involving multiple RDA instructions; community-based guidance for authorities, etc.)
• Target date to move is mid-2022
• LC intends to adopt BF before moving to Official RDA

​

RDA & BIBFRAME questions: the models

• What about model differences…

A bf:Work is roughly equivalent to an rda:Expression or rda:Representative Expression

RDA & BIBFRAME questions: the models

• … and what do they mean for profile development in Sinopia?

PCC templates support references to a more abstract level of work (a bf:Hub, a rda:Work, a SVDE:Opus) through the property bf:expressionOf, though at this time there are no templates available to create them.

​

Templates work as MAPs, and thus state how PCC intends to implement BF with RDA guidelines, including use of RDA properties & vocabularies where appropriate. BF labels will generally be overlaid with RDA labels.

RDA & BIBFRAME questions: Mixing

• Could Sinopia link RDA Work and/or Expression descriptions to BIBFRAME Instance and Item descriptions (assuming it could support the creation of all of these)? What issues would that raise? Could elements from different standards be mixed in a single entity description, provided the entity definitions were comparable?
• short answer: yes
• not a problem from Sinopia point of view
• not a problem from the BF point of view
• Ontology includes the property “expressionOf”, defined as “Work that the described Work is an expression of. Use to connect Works under LRM/RDA guidelines or similar implementations.”
• mixed from an RDA point of view
• Domains & ranges for all regular rda properties create restrictions
• Use of unconstrained property set made available by the RSC is an option endorsed by PCC

​

Last moment thoughts

• titles are the hardest thing…
• AAPs do not equal either BF or RDA works or expressions
• Title rules are surprisingly MARC-based; they tend to make less sense in a linked data framework
• current templates tend to mix both BF & RDA terminology
• Working to clear that up
• templates will soon support property & class choices, which will greatly enhance support of the property-rich RDA-RDF, as well as BF