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

Aki,

On 7/17/2010 9:33 AM, Aki Kivelä wrote:
>
> Hello Alex, Patrick, and the rest
>
> I really enjoy you discussing on this subject. It is very instructive 
> to read Alex revealing practices of library world and possible 
> pitfalls on MARCXML conversions. Somehow I know the problem field. 
> However, being a practical person, and really wanting the MARCXML to 
> Topic Maps conversion, I would like to throw in an idea. This is 
> mainly to Alex, but broader feedback is always more than welcome.
>
> How about converting MARCXML to Topic Maps with a schema similar to 
> MARC to MARCXML conversion. In other words, let's just make topic map 
> a wrapper for MARCXML data, and let's not try to interpret data in 
> fields. Yet another words, let's try to model MARCXML schema somehow 
> with topic maps. I admit the resulting topic map is not very elegant 
> for common people but library people probably find it nice as it 
> mirrors the structure of MARCXML and doesn't mess up their fields. I 
> imagine, it is a nightmare for a librarian if some would mess up with 
> her/his data fields :) Yet another advantage would be an inverse 
> mapping. I suppose it would be possible to convert these topic maps 
> back to MARCXML without loosing information. Alex and all you other 
> library people, would you consider this kind conversion useful? I am 
> happy to explain the conversion idea detailed if I didn't succeed it 
> in the first run - although it isn't that clear to me either, yet.
>

You did a much better job communicating the idea than I did!

That is an excellent suggestion!

As you point out, it gives librarians something familiar, which is 
always a good thing when trying to interest someone in an "improvement" 
of any kind.

But I would take that as only a starting point. A starting point for 
topics that *do* interpret data in the fields. Noting that the 
"converted" fields remain faithful to MARCXML but that a topic map has 
added other topics that represent subjects that occur in those fields.

It would be interesting to think about the reverse mapping you mention 
and how that information could be added back to a more traditional 
library interface.

Hope you are having a great weekend!

Patrick

PS: True, we do have to point into the fields where we identify more 
subjects. Perhaps we need an identifiedBy occurrence type in TMDM terms 
or an identifiedBy property in other legends that specifies what string 
we need to match to identify a particular subject.

At this point I am sure Alex is going to object that such strings are 
used inconsistently, etc. Which is very true. But, since our options are 
to curse the library community for not normalizing decades if not 
centuries worth of data or identifying and then refining our 
identifications, I am arguing for the latter. (Noting that the process 
of normalization is as fraught with the potential for the same 
inconsistencies as the processes that created the data in the first place.)

> Kind Regards,
> Aki / Wandora Team
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>

-- 
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