 |
 |
I'm not sure that I agree that RDF is not a serialization. It really depends on the context of the system and intended use of the linked data. For example, TEI is designed with a specific purpose which cannot be replicated in RDF (at least, not very easily at all), but deriving RDF from highly-linked TEI to put into an endpoint can open doors to queries which are otherwise impossible to make on the data. This certainly requires some rethinking of the way texts interact. But perhaps it may be best to say that RDF *can* (but not necessarily) be a derivation, rather than serialization, of some larger, more complex canonical data model. Ethan On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Aaron Rubinstein < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Karen. I would just add, or > maybe reassure, that this does not necessarily require rethinking your > existing metadata but how to translate that existing metadata into a linked > data environment. Though this might seem like a pain, in many cases it will > actually inspire you to go back and improve/increase the value of that > existing metadata. > > This is definitely looking awesome, Eric! > > Aaron > > 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 repeat: RDF is NOT A SERIALIZATION. > > > > kc > > > > On 11/19/13 5:04 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote: > >> I believe participating in the Semantic Web and providing content via > the principles of linked data is not "rocket surgery", especially for > cultural heritage institutions -- libraries, archives, and museums. Here is > a simple recipe for their participation: > >> > >> 1. use existing metadata standards (MARC, EAD, etc.) to describe > >> collections > >> > >> 2. use any number of existing tools to convert the metadata to > >> HTML, and save the HTML on a Web server > >> > >> 3. use any number of existing tools to convert the metadata to > >> RDF/XML (or some other "serialization" of RDF), and save the > >> RDF/XML on a Web server > >> > >> 4. rest, congratulate yourself, and share your experience with > >> others in your domain > >> > >> 5. after the first time though, go back to Step #1, but this time > >> work with other people inside your domain making sure you use as > >> many of the same URIs as possible > >> > >> 6. after the second time through, go back to Step #1, but this > >> time supplement access to your linked data with a triple store, > >> thus supporting search > >> > >> 7. after the third time through, go back to Step #1, but this > >> time use any number of existing tools to expose the content in > >> your other information systems (relational databases, OAI-PMH > >> data repositories, etc.) > >> > >> 8. for dessert, cogitate ways to exploit the linked data in your > >> domain to discover new and additional relationships between URIs, > >> and thus make the Semantic Web more of a reality > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> I am in the process of writing a guidebook on the topic of linked data > and archives. In the guidebook I will elaborate on this recipe and provide > instructions for its implementation. [1] > >> > >> [1] guidebook - http://sites.tufts.edu/liam/ > >> > >> -- > >> Eric Lease Morgan > >> University of Notre Dame > > > > -- > > Karen Coyle > > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > > m: 1-510-435-8234 > > skype: kcoylenet >