[open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition
kcoyle at kcoyle.net
Mon Jul 5 13:59:35 BST 2010
On a question of usage, would it be practical to have the MARC
2-letter code as a value in the RDF? After all, that is what is the
value in the MARC record. If one were to turn MARC into linked data,
the linking element would be the code. I realize that in the ideal
world the MARC2RDF would use the URI provided here, but ... Perhaps
either an altLabel or hiddenLabel?
Also, there is a German translation, which I can pass along if you
have the time to add them.
Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung at oclc.org>:
> Oops, sorry. I do seem to have some wires crossed. Let me talk to Andy
> Houghton to see if he can help sort out why I believe multiple rdf:types
> are bad for instances.
> Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl> wrote:
> (moving this thread from  to the wider LLD list, this can be of
> interest beyond the XG!)
> Hi Jeff,
> I'm not sure exactly why Ross' file is OWL Full, at least in the OWL 1
> sense. In the validator you point to, I get the following output:
>> * Untyped Object Property: http://umbel.org/umbel#isAbout
>> * Untyped Object Property: http://purl.org/ontology/mo/wikipedia
>> * Untyped Data Property:
>> * Untyped Class: http://purl.org/ontology/mo/Genre
>> * Untyped Individual: http://dbpedia.org/resource/Symphony
>> * Untyped Individual:
>> * Untyped Individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony
> It could be a aide effect of that specific validator's implementation,
> which expects all ontological data to be present in the source at
> validation time--remember that we're checking instance data here, while
> the primary purpose of this validator is, I expect, ontologies.
> Maybe if Ross had pulled the definitions for all the above constructs in
> his file, the problem would have vanished.
> Note that if you want to validate against the latest OWL2-DL, you can use
> I've tried it, and it gives roughly the same results: in OWL2-DL you also
> have to declare explicitly the resources that you're using...
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Jul/0000.html
>> The http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/muscomp/sy.rdf example assumes OWL
>> I think it would be better as OWL DL. This could be done by separating
>> the various types into separate identities using hash URIs. If anyone is
>> interested, I could amend the example to show how.
>> As a rule, I like using OWL DL better than OWL Full because my brain
>> doesn't fall out nearly as often.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-lld-request at w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request at w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:05 AM
>> To: Ross Singer
>> Cc: public-xg-lld at w3.org; List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic
>> Subject: Re: MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition
>> Quoting Ross Singer<ross.singer at talis.com>:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> I just wanted to let people know I've made the MARC codes for forms of
>>> musical compositions (
>>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/marcmuscomp.html) available as
>> Thanks, Ross. I looked at the RDA terms  and interestingly type of
>> composition isn't one of the vocabularies that was defined in RDA. I
>> don't know whether that was an oversight or not -- type of composition
>> is included in the RDA rules, there's just no list to accompany it. So
>> this one may end up doing double duty: MARC and RDA.
>>> They follow the same naming convention as they would in the MARC 008
>> or 047,
>>> so it's easy to map (that is, no lookup needed) from your MARC data:
>>> The RDF is available as well:
>>> I'd love any feedback/suggestions/corrections/etc.
>>> Also, you can look around to see MARC country codes, geographic area
>>> and language codes. Eventually I would like to get all of the MARC
>>> (not already modeled by LC) in there (
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
More information about the open-bibliography