 |
 |
Quoting Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>: > You get the impression that the BL "chose a subset of their current > bibliographic data to expose as LD" - it was kind of the other way around. > Having modeled the 'things' in the British National Bibliography domain > (plus those in related domain vocabularis such as VIAF, LCSH, Geonames, > Bio, etc.), they then looked at the information held in their [Marc] bib > records to identify what could be extracted to populate it. Richard, I've been thinking of something along these lines myself, especially as I see the number of "translating X to RDF" projects go on. I begin to wonder what there is in library data that is *unique*, and my conclusion is: not much. Books, people, places, topics: they all exist independently of libraries, and libraries cannot take the credit for creating any of them. So we should be able to say quite a bit about the resources in libraries using shared data points -- and by that I mean, data points that are also used by others. So once you decide on a model (as BL did), then it is a matter of looking *outward* for the data to re-use. I maintain, however, as per my LITA Forum talk [1] that the subject headings (without talking about quality thereof) and classification designations that libraries provide are an added value, and we should do more to make them useful for discovery. > > I know it is only semantics (no pun intended), but we need to stop using > the word 'record' when talking about the future description of 'things' or > entities that are then linked together. That word has so many built in > assumptions, especially in the library world. I'll let you battle that one out with Simon :-), but I am often at a loss for a better term to describe the unit of metadata that libraries may create in the future to describe their resources. Suggestions highly welcome. kc [1] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/lita2011.html -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet