 |
 |
On 10 December 2011 13:14, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I don't believe that anyone is saying that we have a goal of having a > re-serialization of ISO 2709 in RDF so that we can begin to use that as our > data format. We *do* have millions of records in 2709 with cataloging based > on AACR or ISBD or other rules. The move to any future format will have to > include some kind of transformation of that data. The result will be > something ugly, at least at first: AACR in RDF is not going to be "good" > linked data. > I agree with your sentiment here but, from what you imply at http://futurelib.pbworks.com/w/page/29114548/MARC%20elements, transformation in to something that would be recognisable by the originators of the source Marc will be difficult - and yes ugly. The refreshing thing about the work done by the BL is that they stepped away from the 'record', modeled the things that make up the BnB domain. Then they implemented processes to extract rich data from the source Marc, enrich it with external links, and load it to an RDF representation of the model. On the way, embedded in the extraction/transformation/enrichment processes there was much ugly data, but that was not exposed beyond the process. An approach I applaud, unlike muddying the waters by attempting to publish vocabularies for every Marc tag you can think of. I believe that you and I share a concern: that current library data is > based on such a different model than that of the Semantic Web that by > looking at our past data we will fail to understand or take advantage of > linked data as it should be. > Concern shared. I would however lower my sights slightly by setting the current objective to be 'Publishing bibliographic information as Linked Data to become a valuable and useful part of a Web of Data'. Using the Semantic Web as a goal introduces even more vagueness and baggage. I firmly believe that establishing a linked web of data will eventually underpin a Semantic Web, but there is still a few steps to go before we get anywhere near that. > Unfortunately, the library cataloging world has no proposal for linked > data cataloging. I'm not sure where we could begin. > This is not surprising and I believe, at this stage, it is not a problem. Lets eat the elephant one bite at a time - I envisage a lengthy interim phase where publishing linked bibliographic data derived from traditional Marc records (using processes championed by a community such as CODE4LIB), is the norm. Cataloging processes and systems that use a Linked Data model at the core should then emerge, to satisfy a then established need. ~Richard -- Richard Wallis Technology Evangelist, Talis http://consulting.talis.com Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005 Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis Skype: richard.wallis1 Twitter: @rjw IM: [log in to unmask]