Hasn't the pendulum swung back toward RDFa Lite (
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/) recently? They are fairly equivalent, but
I'm not sure about all the politics involved.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest,
> easiest way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g.
> schema.org. Schema.org does not require you to transform your data at
> all: it only requires mark-up of your online displays. This makes sense
> because as long as your data is in local databases, it's not visible to the
> linked data universe anyway; so why not take the easy way out and just add
> linked data to your public online displays? This doesn't require a
> transformation of your entire record (some of which may not be suitable as
> linked data in any case), only those "things" that are likely to link
> usefully. This latter generally means "things for which you have an
> identifier." And you make no changes to your database, only to display.
> OCLC is already producing this markup in WorldCat records -- not
> perfectly, of course, lots of warts, but it is a first step. However, it is
> a first step that makes more sense to me than *transforming* or
> *cross-walking* current metadata. It also, I believe, will help us
> understand what bits of our current metadata will make the transition to
> linked data, and what bits should remain as accessible documents that users
> can reach through linked data.
>  http://schema.org, and look at the work going on to add bibliographic
> properties at http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Main_Page
>  look at the "linked data" section of any WorldCat page for a single
> item, such ashttp://www.worldcat.org/title/selection-of-early-
> On 11/19/13 7:54 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Eric, I think this skips a step - which is the design step in which you
>>> create a domain model that uses linked data as its basis. RDF is not a
>>> serialization; it actually may require you to re-think the basic
>>> structure of your metadata. The reason for that is that it provides
>>> capabilities that record-based data models do not. Rather than starting
>>> with current metadata, you need to take a step back and ask: what does
>>> my information world look like as linked data?
>> I respectfully disagree. I do not think it necessary to create a domain
>> model ahead of time; I do not think it is necessary for us to re-think our
>> metadata structures. There already exists tools enabling us — cultural
>> heritage institutions — to manifest our metadata as RDF. The manifestations
>> may not be perfect, but “we need to learn to walk before we run” and the
>> metadata structures we have right now will work for right now. As we mature
>> we can refine our processes. I do not advocate “stepping back and asking”.
>> I advocate looking forward and doing. —Eric Morgan
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet