 |
 |
Quoting Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]>: > To be provocative - has the time come for us to abandon the idea > that 'libraries' act as one where cataloguing is concerned, and our > metadata serves the same purpose in all contexts? (I can't decide if > I'm serious about this or not!) I'm having "deep thoughts" about the logic of our current concept of cataloging, but nothing clear enough to even blog about. Let me just say that I'm not at all sure what we would lose if we didn't do "cataloging" as it is known today. kc > > Owen > > > > Owen Stephens > Owen Stephens Consulting > Web: http://www.ostephens.com > Email: [log in to unmask] > Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > > On 11 Dec 2011, at 23:47, Karen Coyle wrote: > >> Quoting Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>: >> >> >>> You get the impression that the BL "chose a subset of their current >>> bibliographic data to expose as LD" - it was kind of the other way around. >>> Having modeled the 'things' in the British National Bibliography domain >>> (plus those in related domain vocabularis such as VIAF, LCSH, Geonames, >>> Bio, etc.), they then looked at the information held in their [Marc] bib >>> records to identify what could be extracted to populate it. >> >> Richard, I've been thinking of something along these lines myself, >> especially as I see the number of "translating X to RDF" projects >> go on. I begin to wonder what there is in library data that is >> *unique*, and my conclusion is: not much. Books, people, places, >> topics: they all exist independently of libraries, and libraries >> cannot take the credit for creating any of them. So we should be >> able to say quite a bit about the resources in libraries using >> shared data points -- and by that I mean, data points that are also >> used by others. So once you decide on a model (as BL did), then it >> is a matter of looking *outward* for the data to re-use. >> >> I maintain, however, as per my LITA Forum talk [1] that the subject >> headings (without talking about quality thereof) and classification >> designations that libraries provide are an added value, and we >> should do more to make them useful for discovery. >> >> >>> >>> I know it is only semantics (no pun intended), but we need to stop using >>> the word 'record' when talking about the future description of 'things' or >>> entities that are then linked together. That word has so many built in >>> assumptions, especially in the library world. >> >> I'll let you battle that one out with Simon :-), but I am often at >> a loss for a better term to describe the unit of metadata that >> libraries may create in the future to describe their resources. >> Suggestions highly welcome. >> >> kc >> [1] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/lita2011.html >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet