MODS to RDF Mapping Recommendations: Email Responses
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
ReceivedFromMessage
2
2018-06-20
Hess, Kirk <khes@loc.gov>
Thanks for your hard work on this mapping!

"Adding to these challenges is the hierarchical and extensible nature of MODS XML, which does not easily translate to the RDF graph model without the use of either blank nodes (which are problematic to represent in the Samvera and Fedora stack) or minted object classes for metadata elements such as creators and subjects."

Why are blank nodes problematic in Fedora? We would like to know more about this problem since the patterns around BIBFRAME use a lot of blank nodes.

I wanted to specifically recommend not using http://bibliographic-ontology.org/ aka BIBO. Despite being a purl, the uri redirects to their server which returns a 404 error on a php module, I assume because the company behind it went out of business in January. While the ontology lives on in Github I don't think it's a good idea to use dead projects. Also, with such a small number of properties (edition, issue, presentedAt and volume) I would recommend instead using the 'opaque' namespace for now.

Please consider proposing adding edition, issue and volume as literal properties see https://github.com/lcnetdev/bibframe-ontology/issues. I think you would make a good case – we already have a property bf:edition which is for the "Edition of the classification scheme" which I think we should change (bf:classificationEdition). The way you use edition is very similar to bf:editionEnumeration without a domain. Issue and volume (see firstIssue/lastIssue) seem straight forward.

Unfortunately, bibo:presentedAt currently doesn't quite work; in example 12 you have the type as a foaf:Organization but the range in the ontology is a bibo:Event which has no information in the ontology (a good example of the problem I was trying to highlight above...). I think BIBO was modelling something like bf:eventContentOf and bf:Event but those don't work either. The way you used it in the example it is a similar property to bf:grantingInstitution with a range of foaf:Organization. Probably best in 'opaque' as I mentioned above - it seems much less straight forward than the other three but we could do that in bibframe too if you wanted to submit an issue as well.
Thanks!

Kirk Hess
LS/ABA/NDMSO
LA308, Mail Stop 4402
Library of Congress
Washington DC 20540
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...