Initiated in 2021, the University of Washington Libraries have committed to using LRM/RDA/RDF (RDA as linked data) to represent RDA description sets. While LRM/RDA/RDF has not been widely adopted and few test datasets exist, this could change rapidly if libraries transform legacy MARC data to LRM/RDA/RDF. As they near completion of Phase 1 of the project, presenters will describe a groundbreaking mapping and conversion project between the MARC21 bibliographic standard and LRM/RDA/RDF. In addition to describing the cross-organizational team, the presentation summarizes the scope and strategy of the first phase of the project, describes key discussions, highlights challenging decisions, and shares project workflows. Advance releases of project deliverables are shared ahead of their anticipated official publication at the end of 2024, including mappings in .csv format, XSLT transformation code, and sample transformation data in the original MARC21 format and the resulting LRM/RDA/RDF. More information about the open project can be found in the following GitHub repository: GitHub - uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA: mapping between MARC21 and RDA-RDF
Q: How have the project team members experienced working with your Wikibase? Roughly what percentage of project team members edit the Wikibase?
A: The student who is working on the Wikibase is still setting it up. We expect many project team members will edit it once it is ready. Experience has been positive so far.
Q: Have you compared your results with BIBFRAME conversions from the same MARC21 sources?
A: We found that BIBFRAME cannot fully represent RDA data. We see more accurate reflections of the RDA standards using our mappings.
Using RDA and not BIBFRAME is okay. However, how much have you considered interoperability?
The BIG group is looking at the mapping of BIBFRAME with RDA. So there might be an option to export at least some of your RDA-based data at an āinterchange levelā into systems using BIBFRAME, would you think?
And it works both ways would you consider doing data ingestion not only from MARC but from triples created in BIBFRAME into your dataset?
Iām sure our community will have to continue wrestling with these mappings and solving interoperability problems.
Creating BIBFRAME (or Dublin Core, or other simpler models) from our dataset would be a simple task, since BIBFRAME is a less complex model. At this point, bringing data created natively in BIBFRAME into an RDA environment is very challenging because the model is not compatible with the LRM. It is beyond the scope of our project. I think those considering using BIBFRAME to represent RDA description sets ought to reconsider, as a mapping from BIBFRAME to RDA is, in my experience, not possible without an unacceptable level of loss. How far along is BIG with their mapping between BIBFRAME and RDA?
Thanks for using aliases in the presentation btw.! I didnāt know RDA Registry had them, but it was much easier to follow along with property names such as rdamo:expressionManifested instead of rdamo:P30139
For the mappings, in the LKD project we have added many RDA based properties which are considered mandatory in the Finnish content description into the BFFI datamodel.
At the end of the project we would have mappings BFFI to BIBFRAME and RDA as well as BIBFRAME to BFFI. We also would use our own value vocabularies to control values of some of the properties to make future data more consistent.
Some of these mappings and modifications are already visible in the most recent 0.8.0 test version of the model at https://schema.fino.fi/bffi/ Please, be free to comment on our GIthub if you find any unexplainable peculiarities in the model.
It will be very interesting to see the results and evaluate them, particularly at the levels of BIBFRAME hub, opus, work, other similar classes and RDA work and expression.
