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
|
