Ethan, it looks to me like it depends on who you are and who is your 
target. In the clan there is still a majority using 
microdata, but my impression is that these are the online sales sites 
whose primary interest is SEO. RDFa lite is moving up generally [0], yet 
I haven't seen a clear statement that the search engines consider it = 
microdata (even though the two are very close). Perhaps they do? 
Recently it was announced that JSON-LD is now an "official" 
markup. The advantage of JSON-LD is that it separates the display from 
the mark-up so there is less of a formatting issue. However, it also 
opens it all up to scamming - well, to easier scamming than with the 
other two formats.

Meanwhile, as more and more folks discover there is more and 
more demand for additions to what was originally an extremely simple set 
of properties. Some predict that it will crumble under its own 
disorderliness, a metadata tower of Babel.

Regardless of that, I still think that the web is the place for linked 
data, even though there are quite a few enterprise implementations of ld 
that do not present a public face. I'd prefer to have some idea of what 
we want to link to, why, and how it will help users. There are some 
examples, like FAO's Open Agris [1], but I'd like to see more. (And I'm 
not sure what LIBRIS [2] is doing with their catalog, which is reported 
to be a triple-store.)

On 11/19/13 8:28 AM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> Hasn't the pendulum swung back toward RDFa Lite (
> recently?  They are fairly equivalent, but
> I'm not sure about all the politics involved.
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Eric, if you want to leap into the linked data world in the fastest,
>> easiest way possible, then I suggest looking at microdata markup, e.g.
>>[1] does not require you to transform your data at
>> all: it only requires mark-up of your online displays. This makes sense
>> because as long as your data is in local databases, it's not visible to the
>> linked data universe anyway; so why not take the easy way out and just add
>> linked data to your public online displays? This doesn't require a
>> transformation of your entire record (some of which may not be suitable as
>> linked data in any case), only those "things" that are likely to link
>> usefully. This latter generally means "things for which you have an
>> identifier." And you make no changes to your database, only to display.
>> OCLC is already producing this markup in WorldCat records [2]-- not
>> perfectly, of course, lots of warts, but it is a first step. However, it is
>> a first step that makes more sense to me than *transforming* or
>> *cross-walking* current metadata. It also, I believe, will help us
>> understand what bits of our current metadata will make the transition to
>> linked data, and what bits should remain as accessible documents that users
>> can reach through linked data.
>> kc
>> [1], and look at the work going on to add bibliographic
>> properties at
>> [2] look at the "linked data" section of any WorldCat page for a single
>> item, such as
>> statistical-papers-of-j-neyman/oclc/527725&referer=brief_results
>> On 11/19/13 7:54 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>   Eric, I think this skips a step - which is the design step in which you
>>>> create a domain model that uses linked data as its basis. RDF is not a
>>>> serialization; it actually may require you to re-think the basic
>>>> structure of your metadata. The reason for that is that it provides
>>>> capabilities that record-based data models do not. Rather than starting
>>>> with current metadata, you need to take a step back and ask: what does
>>>> my information world look like as linked data?
>>> I respectfully disagree. I do not think it necessary to create a domain
>>> model ahead of time; I do not think it is necessary for us to re-think our
>>> metadata structures. There already exists tools enabling us — cultural
>>> heritage institutions — to manifest our metadata as RDF. The manifestations
>>> may not be perfect, but “we need to learn to walk before we run” and the
>>> metadata structures we have right now will work for right now. As we mature
>>> we can refine our processes. I do not advocate “stepping back and asking”.
>>> I advocate looking forward and doing. —Eric Morgan
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet