LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  August 2012

CODE4LIB August 2012

Subject:

Re: Corrections to Worldcat/Hathi/Google

From:

Peter Noerr <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:07:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

I agree entirely that these would need to be a collection of triples with its own set of attributes/metadata describing the collection. Basically a "record" with triples as the data elements.

But I see a bigger problem with the direction this thread has taken so far. The use of versions has been conditioned by the use of something like Github as the underlying "versioning platform". But Github (and all software versioning systems) are based on temporal versions, where each version is, in some way, an evolved unit of the same underlying thing - a program or whatever. So the versions are really temporally linearly related to each other as well as related in terms of added or improved or fixed functionality. Yes, the codebase (the underlying "thing") can fork or split in a number of ways, but they are all versions of the same thing, progressing through time.

In the existing bibliographic case we have many records which purport to be about the same thing, but contain different data values for the same elements. And these are the "the versions" we have to deal with, and eventually reconcile. They are not descendents of the same original, they are independent entities, whether they are recorded as singular MARC records or collections of LD triples. I would suggest that at all levels, from the triplet or key/value field pair to the triple collection or fielded record, what we have are "alternates", not "versions". 
 
Thus the alternates exist at the triple level, and also at the "collection" level (the normal bibliographic unit record we are familiar with). And those alternates could then be allowed versions which are the attempts to, in some way, improve the quality (your definition of what this is is as good as mine) over time. And with a closed group of alternates (of a single bib unit) these versioned alternates would (in a perfect world) iterate to a common descendent which had the same agreed, authorized set of triples. Of course this would only be the "authorized form" for those organizations which recognized the arrangement. 

But, allowing alternates and their versions does allow for a method of tracking the original problem of three organizations each copying each other endlessly to "correct" their data. In this model it would be an alternate/version spiral of states, rather than a flat circle of each changing version with no history, and no idea of which was master. (Try re-reading Stuart's "(a), (b), (c)" below with the idea of alternates as well as versions (of the Datasets). I think it would become clearer as to what was happening.) There is still no master, but at least the state changes can be properly tracked and checked by software (and/or humans) so the endless cycle can be addressed - probably by an outside (human) decision about the "correct" form of a triple to use for this bib entity.

Or this may all prove to be an unnecessary complication.

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of stuart yeates
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Corrections to Worldcat/Hathi/Google
> 
> These have to be named graphs, or at least collections of triples which can be processed through
> workflows as a single unit.
> 
> In terms of LD there version needs to be defined in terms of:
> 
> (a) synchronisation with the non-bibliographic real world (i.e. Dataset Z version X was released at
> time Y)
> 
> (b) correction/augmentation of other datasets (i.e Dataset F version G contains triples augmenting
> Dataset H versions A, B, C and D)
> 
> (c) mapping between datasets (i.e. Dataset I contains triples mapping between Dataset J version K and
> Dataset L version M (and visa-versa))
> 
> Note that a 'Dataset' here could be a bibliographic dataset (records of works, etc), a classification
> dataset (a version of the Dewey Decimal Scheme, a version of the Māori Subject Headings, a version of
> Dublin Core Scheme, etc), a dataset of real-world entities to do authority control against (a dbpedia
> dump, an organisational structure in an institution, etc), or some arbitrary mapping between some
> arbitrary combination of these.
> 
> Most of these are going to be managed and generated using current systems with processes that involve
> periodic dumps (or drops) of data (the dbpedia drops of wikipedia data are a good model here). git
> makes little sense for this kind of data.
> 
> github is most likely to be useful for smaller niche collaborative collections (probably no more than
> a million triples) mapping between the larger collections, and scripts for integrating the collections
> into a sane whole.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> On 28/08/12 08:36, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > Ed, Corey -
> >
> > I also assumed that Ed wasn't suggesting that we literally use github
> > as our platform, but I do want to remind folks how far we are from
> > having "people friendly" versioning software -- at least, none that I
> > have seen has felt "intuitive." The features of git are great, and
> > people have built interfaces to it, but as Galen's question brings
> > forth, the very
> > *idea* of versioning doesn't exist in library data processing, even
> > though having central-system based versions of MARC records (with a
> > single time line) is at least conceptually simple.
> >
> > Therefore it seems to me that first we have to define what a version
> > would be, both in terms of data but also in terms of the mind set and
> > work flow of the cataloging process. How will people *understand*
> > versions in the context of their work? What do they need in order to
> > evaluate different versions? And that leads to my second question:
> > what is a version in LD space? Triples are just triples - you can add
> > them or delete them but I don't know of a way that you can version
> > them, since each has an independent T-space existence. So, are we
> > talking about named graphs?
> >
> > I think this should be a high priority activity around the "new
> > bibliographic framework" planning because, as we have seen with MARC,
> > the idea of versioning needs to be part of the very design or it won't
> > happen.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 8/27/12 11:20 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Corey A Harper
> >> <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think there's a useful distinction here. Ed can correct me if I'm
> >>> wrong, but I suspect he was not actually suggesting that Git itself
> >>> be the user-interface to a github-for-data type service, but rather
> >>> that such a service can be built *on top* of an infrastructure
> >>> component like GitHub.
> >> Yes, I wasn't saying that we could just plonk our data into Github,
> >> and pat ourselves on the back for a good days work :-) I guess I was
> >> stating the obvious: technologies like Git have made once hard
> >> problems like decentralized version control much, much easier...and
> >> there might be some giants shoulders to stand on.
> >>
> >> //Ed
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Stuart Yeates
> Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager