Jonathan,

Different communities have different benefits.


   1. Library catalogers, at least, seem sold on the idea of using URIs if
   they can then populate the display value of fields with strings. I've been
   giving them this scenario for about 4 years now, and they're sold. This
   would simplify the tasks of cleaning up old metadata records and updating
   subject headings, etc. The question is how to accomplish this given the
   constraints of existing systems and content standards. Maintain two
   systems, one for input and one for display, pushing data from one to the
   other with a export --> normalize --> import routine? Not viable for most
   institutions. So, near-term in theory, pie-in-the-sky in reality.
   2. The benefits to metadata aggregators seem obvious; if the aggregators
   can access the linked data form of the records, it greatly simplifies data
   pre-processing. Near-term in theory, but only if enough individual
   institutions participate. I have no idea where the tipping point on that
   would be. But see #1 for the problem of getting the linked data.
   3. The benefits to researchers are longer-term and less defined in my
   mind. Improved ability to explore data aggregations is the primary one I
   can think of.
   4. The benefits to other users are the ones that seem most nebulous. I
   don't even have data on whether people use Semantic Web-enabled tools like
   Google's Knowledge Graph or how much value they perceive in rich snippets.
   Google apparently thinks there's value, because apparently they spend a lot
   of time adding schema.org markup to their index to enable snippets (
   http://searchengineland.com/schema-markup-shows-36-google-search-results-almost-websites-use-study-189707
   ).


Danielle

-- 

Danielle Cunniff Plumer
dcplumer associates
[log in to unmask]


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If you want libraries to spend money on adding URI's to their data, there
> is going to need to be some clear benefit they get from doing it -- and it
> needs to be a pretty near-term benefit, not "Well, some day all these
> awesome things might happen, because linked data."
>
>
>
> On 4/30/14 1:34 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions
>> that I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of
>> URIs -- "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these
>> questions usually come from library or archive projects with little or
>> no programming staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that
>> question so that people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that
>> the most pressing need right now is an easy way (or one that someone
>> else can do for you at a reasonable cost) to connect the text string
>> "identifiers" that we have to URIs. I envision something like what we
>> went through when we moved from AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and
>> libraries were able to send their MARC records to a service that
>> returned the records with the new name form. In this case, though, such
>> a service would return the data with the appropriate URIs added. (In the
>> case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)
>>
>> It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
>> resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just
>> beyond the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to
>> make this easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential
>> for an enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for
>> libraries and archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in
>> x or y format and we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great,
>> but I think it would be reasonable to charge for such a service.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>
>>> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>
>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>
>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>> identify
>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>
>>> Tools such as xISBN <http://xisbn.worldcat.org/xisbnadmin/doc/api.htm>
>>> can
>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>> volume
>>> usage.
>>>
>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>>
>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
>>>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
>>>> it.
>>>> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
>>>> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>>>>
>>>> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
>>>> a) is an OCLC member institution
>>>> b) is not
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>>>>>>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to
>>>>>> put
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> past in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
>>>>> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>>>>>
>>>>>   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
>>>>> linked
>>>>>
>>>>>> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> world, then no one is paying attention.
>>>>>> Roy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
>>>>>> nuggets-of-linked-data/
>>>>>> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
>>>>> open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
>>>>> of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
>>>>> yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
>>>>> Works page) :)
>>>>>
>>>>> A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
>>>>> B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
>>>>> licensing/questions.en.html
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>