 |
 |
Thanks, Matt. The RDF here uses BIBO and DC, and is therefore definitely lossy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- loss from MARC may well be the only way to save library metadata. What I would be interested in learning is how one decides WHAT to lose. I"m also curious to know if any folks have started out with a minimum set of elements from MARC and then later pulled in other dat elements that were needed. This brings up another point that I haven't fully grokked yet: the use of MARC kept library data "consistent" across the many thousands of libraries that had MARC-based systems. What happens if we move to RDF without a standard? Can we rely on linking to provide interoperability without that rigid consistency of data models? kc Quoting Matt Machell <[log in to unmask]>: > Owen mentioned the Talis (now Capita Libraries) model. If you'd like > more info on that, our tech lead put his slides from the Linked Data > in Libraries event online at: > > http://www.slideshare.net/philjohn/linked-library-data-in-the-wild-8593328 > > They cover some of the work we've done, approaches taken and some of > the challenges (in both released and as yet unreleased versions of the > model). > > For some context, the Prism data model is used on some 70 or so > University and local authority catalogues in the UK and Ireland. Any > item in those catalogues can be accessed as linked data by appending > the appropriate file type (.nt, .rdf or .json) to the item uris (or > .rss to search uris), for example: > http://catalogue.library.manchester.ac.uk/items/3013197.rdf > > Hope that's helpful. > > Matt Machell > > Senior Developer, Prism 3 - Capita LIbraries > > Me: http://eclecticdreams.com > Work: http://blogs.talis.com/prism > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet