LISTSERV 16.5 - CODE4LIB Archives

Thanks to everyone for the conversation re: barriers to open metadata. Your
feedback is really helpful!

Laura


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 4/30/14, 9:19 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
>
>> If libraries aren't willing to put in the the effort to make their own
>> data
>> more useful and connected, then I don't think they are going do much of
>> anything useful very with "linked data cake" served on a silver platter.
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that we cede linked data creation, management
>> and
>> curation to vendors.
>>
> Gee, that's pretty sarcastic. No, I am suggesting that there is a needed
> service to help folks with textual data take that first step: adding the
> identifiers for those strings, like adding $0 fields to their MARC records.
> Perhaps you weren't around for the previous transitions, but such services
> jump-started both the conversion of cards to MARC and AACR to AACR2. You
> may not be aware but OCLC and other vendors provide conversion services of
> this nature on a continuing basis. It's much more efficient than having
> every library do the same coding for themselves. Oh, and remember that we
> share cataloging through copy cataloging services. There are lots of things
> that it just doesn't make sense to "do it yourself."
>
> kc
>
>
>
>
>> Chad
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2014 10:28 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
>>>> similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
>>>> Roy
>>>>
>>> Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same
>>>
>> leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized that
>> in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what we had
>> was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an impossible
>> task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be possible.
>>
>>> I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully
>>>
>> resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is
>> not
>> as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can learn --
>> that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, John" with
>> title
>> "Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's my book"). This is
>> what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a lot of this when
>> merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when determining what are
>> works, and when bringing authority entries together for VIAF. No, you
>> don't
>> get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now with any of our services.
>>
>>> And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you
>>>
>> walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and
>> show
>> you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake -- if
>> you
>> could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the bakery, you'd
>> be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm talking cake, not
>> cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the library and archives
>> masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, wouldn't this be a good
>> time to open a bakery?
>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>
>>> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>
>>> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your
>>>>>
>>>> data
>>
>>> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem
>>>>>
>>>> today
>>
>>> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that
>>>>>
>>>> some
>>
>>> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in
>>>>>
>>>> their
>>
>>> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
>>>>> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
>>>>> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
>>>>> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>
>>> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!"
>>>>>
>>>> So
>>
>>> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Also, this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public
>>>>>>
>>>>> domain.
>>
>>> Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be
>>>>>>
>>>>> subject
>>
>>> to
>>>>>> individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or
>>>>>>
>>>>> link
>>
>>> to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work
>>>>>>
>>>>> URIs)
>>
>>> can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included
>>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>
>>> any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> no
>>
>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>>>>>> identify
>>>>>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>>>>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tools such as xISBN <http://xisbn.worldcat.org/
>>>>>>> xisbnadmin/doc/api.htm>
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>>>>>> volume
>>>>>>> usage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OCLC
>>
>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> this.
>>
>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some
>>
>>> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
>>>>>>>> a) is an OCLC member institution
>>>>>>>> b) is not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant <
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>>>>>>>>>>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> once
>>
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> all:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> past in the past.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as
>>
>>> linked
>>>>>>>> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> linked
>>
>>> data
>>>>>>>>>> world, then no one is paying attention.
>>>>>>>>>> Roy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
>>>>>>>>>> nuggets-of-linked-data/
>>>>>>>>>> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about
>>>>>>>>>> barriers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>
>>> open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
>>>>>>>>> of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
>>>>>>>>> yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> Works page) :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
>>>>>>>>> B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
>>>>>>>>> licensing/questions.en.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>> Richard Wallis
>>>>>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>>>>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>>>>>> Skype: richard.wallis1
>>>>>>> Twitter: @rjw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>



-- 
Laura Krier

laurapants.com<http://laurapants.com/?utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email>