On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You still haven't really answered my question about what you're hoping to
> achieve and who stands to benefit from it. I don't see how assigning a
> bunch of arbitrary identifiers, properties, and values to a description of
> a collection of archival materials (especially since you're talking about
> doing this in XSLT, so your archival collections can't even really be
> related to /each other/ much less anything else).
>
> Who is going to use going to use this data? What are they supposed to do
> with it? What will libraries and archives get from it?
My goal is three-fold:
* to describe to the neophyte what linked data is and why they should care
* to describe the to archivist who appreciates the value of linked data
but does not know how to achieve its goals, possible approaches to
improving there metadata, specifically, the robust inclusion of URIs
* to describe to the technologist the principles of archival practice,
to make them understand that things like EAD files describe
“collections” and not necessarily individual things, moreover to
demonstrate the utter simplicity of linked data principles
Yes, the EAD files and thus RDF/XML, etc. will not necessarily be linked to other things. That’s the point. By implementing my recipe, I will demonstrate who both the archivist as well as the technologist the need to work differently in order to achieve the linked data goal.
My goal is not necessarily to provide a robust information system. While the information system I create will be useful, it is not intended to be the be-all end-all of linked data for archivists. In fact, it will painfully illustrate the deficiencies in our existing practices.
Linked data suffers from a chicken-and-egg problem. By implementing my simple recipe, I believe I will be making it easier for the community to lay an egg.
—
Eric Lease Morgan
