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

View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ
1
TimestampDirect Mappings
Minted Object Mappings
ReadabilityOrganizationMapping examplesStructure: Comments
Will these recommendations be useful or impact your work?
Other CommentsContact information
2
6/14/2018 11:54:39I found the "Scope and Strategy for Work" and "Initial Strategy and Decisions" sections to be very helpful for clarifying things such as the intended audience and the reason for not pursuing the MODS RDF ontology.I thought the direct mappings did a good job of explaining where granularity may be lost, particularly for name and subject. The only question I had was whether it is problematic at all to map both <genre> and <physicalDescription><form> to edm:hasType?The document does a good job of explaining when a minted object mapping may be desired/advantageous. The name and relatedItem mappings were particularly informative for our local needs.333The structure of the document made sense to me, and it is fairly easy to navigate with links available. The formatting of the tables with the predicates and the examples is well done.4These recommendations are extremely useful to me, as we are planning a MODS to RDF migration and I am new to working in an RDF environment. I am interested in future developments regarding the predicates to be added to OpaqueNamespace. Thank you for all your hard work. goslen@email.unc.edu
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...