The other issue that the 'modelling' brings (IMO) is that the model influences use - or better the other way round, the intended use and/or audience should influence the model. This raises questions for me about the value of a 'neutral' model - which is what I perceive libraries as aiming for - treating users as a homogenous mass with needs that will be met by a single approach. Obviously there are resource implications to developing multiple models for different uses/audiences, and once again I'd argue that an advantage of the linked data approach is that it allows for the effort to be distributed amongst the relevant communities.

To be provocative - has the time come for us to abandon the idea that 'libraries' act as one where cataloguing is concerned, and our metadata serves the same purpose in all contexts? (I can't decide if I'm serious about this or not!)

Owen



Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 11 Dec 2011, at 23:47, Karen Coyle wrote:

> 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