Thanks, Matt. The RDF here uses BIBO and DC, and is therefore  
definitely lossy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- loss from MARC  
may well be the only way to save library metadata. What I would be  
interested in learning is how one decides WHAT to lose. I"m also  
curious to know if any folks have started out with a minimum set of  
elements from MARC and then later pulled in other dat elements that  
were needed.

This brings up another point that I haven't fully grokked yet: the use  
of MARC kept library data "consistent" across the many thousands of  
libraries that had MARC-based systems. What happens if we move to RDF  
without a standard? Can we rely on linking to provide interoperability  
without that rigid consistency of data models?

kc

Quoting Matt Machell <[log in to unmask]>:

> Owen mentioned the Talis (now Capita Libraries) model. If you'd like
> more info on that, our tech lead put his slides from the Linked Data
> in Libraries event online at:
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/philjohn/linked-library-data-in-the-wild-8593328
>
> They cover some of the work we've done, approaches taken and some of
> the challenges (in both released and as yet unreleased versions of the
> model).
>
> For some context, the Prism data model is used on some 70 or so
> University and local authority catalogues in the UK and Ireland. Any
> item in those catalogues can be accessed as linked data by appending
> the appropriate file type (.nt, .rdf or .json) to the item uris (or
> .rss to search uris), for example:
> http://catalogue.library.manchester.ac.uk/items/3013197.rdf
>
> Hope that's helpful.
>
> Matt Machell
>
> Senior Developer, Prism 3 - Capita LIbraries
>
> Me: http://eclecticdreams.com
> Work: http://blogs.talis.com/prism
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet