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  February 2015

CODE4LIB February 2015

Subject:

Re: linked data question

From:

Sarah Weissman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:54:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Hi Cindy. I don't think that you have offended anyone. (??) But I'm mostly
a CODE4LIB lurker and don't pretend to speak for anyone else on the list.

I think I see what you mean now about a local or centralized index vs. a
distributed index. It seems like this would correspond to pattern 3 (query
federation) that Owen listed above. In that case I guess a distributed
index would be a bunch of local, independent indexes remote from one
another that would have some agreed upon indexing scheme so that you could
retrieve search results from each of them and combine them to present them
to your local user. Even though this is less efficient than a centralized
index, it seems like it could be more cost efficient than replicating huge
numbers of records locally or paying to have your records included in a
centralized indexing service. (I have no idea what services like WorldCat
cost.) Results could even be returned asynchronously to users.

But this kind of federation of remote search results isn't unique to linked
data. Linked data standards might make this type of federation easier
because triple stores are schemaless, so you can throw a bunch of linked
data together even if it is completely unrelated without breaking your
system (although it wouldn't be very useful). I work in an astronomy
archive and it seems like most of the headache for us in retrieving and
presenting data from remote resources to our users comes from incompatible
schemas, rather than the speed of querying remote resources.



On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Harper, Cynthia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I apologize to both lists for this observation. I don't mean to offend
> anyone, and now it's clear to me that this will potentially do so.  I don't
> plan on commenting further.  I do hold both new technologists and
> traditional librarians in respect - I just may generalize too much in
> trying to describe to myself where the viewpoints differ.
>
> Cindy Harper
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harper, Cynthia
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: 'AUTOCAT'
> Subject: RE: [CODE4LIB] linked data question
>
> So the issue being discussed on AUTOCAT was the availability/fault
> tolerance of the database, given that it's spread over numerous remote
> systems, and I suppose local caching and mirroring are the answers there.
>
> The other issue was skepticism about the feasibility of indexing all these
> remote sources, which led me to thinking about remote indexes, but I see
> the answer is that that's why we won't be using single-site local systems
> so much, but instead using Google-like web-scale indexes.  That's putting
> pressure on the old vision of "the library catalog" as "our database".
>
> Is that a fair understanding?
>
> Cindy Harper
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Eric Lease Morgan
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] linked data question
>
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Sarah Weissman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I am kind of new to this linked data thing, but it seems like the real
> > power of it is not full-text search, but linking through the use of
> > shared vocabularies. So if you have data about Jane Austen in your
> > database and you are using the same URI as other databases to
> > represent Jane Austen in your data (say
> > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jane_Austen), then you (or rather, your
> > software) can do an exact search on that URI in remote resources vs. a
> > fuzzy text search. In other words, linked data is really
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > supposed to be linked by machines and discoverable through URIs. If
> > you
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > visit the URL: http://dbpedia.org/page/Jane_Austen you can see a
> > human-interpretable representation of the data a SPARQL endpoint would
> > return for a query for triples {http://dbpedia.org/page/Jane_Austen ?p
> ?o}.
> > This is essentially asking the database for all
> > subject-predicate-object facts it contains where Jane Austen is the
> subject.
>
>
> Again, seweissman++  The implementation of linked data is VERY much like
> the implementation of a relational database over HTTP, and in such a
> scenario, the URIs are the database keys. —ELM
>

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

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