 |
 |
Quoting Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>: > 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. Richard, this is an interesting statement about the BL data. Are you saying that they chose a subset of their current bibliographic data to expose as LD? (I haven't found anything yet that describes the process used, so if there is a document I missed, please send link!) This almost sounds like the FRBR process, BTW - modeling the domain, which is also step one of the Singapore Framework/Dublin Core Application Profile process, then selecting data elements for the domain. [1] FRBR, unfortunately, has perceived problems as model (which I am attempting to gather up here [2] but may move to the LLD community wiki space to give it more visibility). The work that I'm doing is not based on the assumption that all of MARC will be carried forward. The reason I began my work is that I don't think we know what is in the MARC record -- there is similar data scattered all over, some data that changes meaning as indicators are applied, etc. There is no implication that a future record would have all of those data elements, but at least we should know what data elements there are in our data. On a more practical note, before we can link we need our data in coherent semantic chunks, not broken up into tags, subfields, etc. > > 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. My concern is the creation of LD silos. BL data uses some known namespaces (BIBO, FOAF, BIO), which in fact is a way to "join" the web of data that many others are participating in, because your "foaf:Person" can interact with anyone else's "foaf:Person." But there are a great number of efforts that are modeling current records (FRBRer, ISBD, MODS, RDA) and are entirely silo'd - there is nothing that would connect the data to anyone else's data (and the ones mentioned would not even connect to each other). So I don't know what you mean by "part of a Web of data" but to me using non-silo'd properties is enough to meet that criterion. Another possibility is to create links from your properties to properties outside of your silo, e.g. from RDA:Person to foaf:Person, for sharing and discoverability. I'm more concerned than you are about the issue of cataloging rules. A huge effort has gone into RDA and will now go into the "new bibliographic framework." RDA will soon have occupied a decade of scarce library community effort, and the new framework will be based on it, just as RDA is based on FRBR. We've been going in this direction for over 20 years. Meanwhile, look at how much has changed in the world around us. We're moving much more slowly than the world we need to be working within. kc [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/ [2] http://futurelib.pbworks.com/w/page/48221836/FRBR%20Models%20Discussion > > >> 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] > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet