 |
 |
Hasn't the pendulum swung back toward RDFa Lite ( http://www.w3.org/TR/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. > schema.org.[1] Schema.org 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] http://schema.org, and look at the work going on to add bibliographic > properties at http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Main_Page > [2] look at the "linked data" section of any WorldCat page for a single > item, such ashttp://www.worldcat.org/title/selection-of-early- > 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] http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >