Dynamic vs. Fixed World Views was Re: MARCXML to Topic Maps? MODS to Topic Maps?

Alex,

On 7/15/2010 5:07 AM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Aki Kivela<[email protected]>  wrote:
>    
>> Therefore I am looking for a mapping from MARCXML [2] to Topic Maps and/or
>> MODS [3] to Topic Maps. I know the issue has been touched in many research
>> papers, for example [4], but still couldn't find a working implementation
>> for these mappings. Do you know any?
>>      
> I wish I could be more supportive and helpful, but all attempts to
> model up MARC (specifically MARC21, not sure if the Finnish MARC is
> different) as far as I know have failed (to various degrees). Crikey,
> the library world itself are having huge problems just making the
> transition from AACR2-based MARC21 to FRBR (and RDA) based normalized
> data sets. You have to realize that the MARC model is highly
> unnormalized, and relies on huge amounts of prose as field data, and
> have *no* notion of identity management. Some data are ok and can be
> used, of course, but lots of stuff is worthless unless put in a larger
> context.
>
>    

Aren't most large data sets going to have varying degrees of "highly 
unnormalized" data and "...*no* notion of identity management"?

Thinking that success or failure of a conversion isn't measured by the 
1st, 10th or 100th conversion.

Unless you subscribe to the "fixed world view" which ascribes to any 
data set, normalized or otherwise, one and only one "correct" 
interpretation.

That a data set has "huge amounts of prose data" is an opportunity for 
topic maps to demonstrate that handling multiple views of the subjects 
found in data, is *routine* for topic maps. Even though *unthinkable* in 
fixed word view paradigms.

Topic maps offer a *dynamic* world view that has no one correct view of 
subjects.

A very good thing for library collections since users from different 
language and cultural backgrounds are going to seek information 
differently. Along side some "canonical" view that is the one used by 
librarians, who are a culture themselves.

So convert with whatever mapping seems appropriate now and enable others 
to *enrich* that mapping with mappings of their own. Some will map to 
subjects found in the large prose sections, some will map resources 
found elsewhere and still others may do both.
> You could always check with OCLC (they have some converting web
> services), and perhaps CODE4LIB have code that does "something" (I
> remember at least a better MARC -->  MODS converter in Python or
> Ruby?). Was it MarcTools? I looked briefly at LibraryThing services,
> too, but they are too fluffy for these purposes.
>
> Now, after all that, I did do a MARC directly to Topic Maps / XTM 1.0
> converter back in the days, but I'm sure where it is, and I remember
> its state as being somewhat, um, flimsy (for the before mentioned
> reasons). I've got a ton of MARC data lying around that I meant to
> release as linked data, so I've got an interest in this, too. I'll
> look into it in more detail over the next few days and report, if
> anything.
>
>    
Will be very interested to see that report.

Plus your suggestions on what a framework to encourage others to 
contribute additional mappings to a topic map.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

PS: Hi! Lars (Heuer)! That a library has a view of its data is, after 
all, only one view. That might be the first view I created in a library 
topic map but certainly not the only one. Having multiple views into 
library data simply creates more "access points" to use library 
terminology. Topic maps have the potential to enrich current library 
data by adding the views of users of library data.

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau