On 4/30/14, 9:19 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> If libraries aren't willing to put in the the effort to make their own data
> more useful and connected, then I don't think they are going do much of
> anything useful very with "linked data cake" served on a silver platter.
>
> Are you really suggesting that we cede linked data creation, management and
> curation to vendors.
Gee, that's pretty sarcastic. No, I am suggesting that there is a needed
service to help folks with textual data take that first step: adding the
identifiers for those strings, like adding $0 fields to their MARC
records. Perhaps you weren't around for the previous transitions, but
such services jump-started both the conversion of cards to MARC and AACR
to AACR2. You may not be aware but OCLC and other vendors provide
conversion services of this nature on a continuing basis. It's much more
efficient than having every library do the same coding for themselves.
Oh, and remember that we share cataloging through copy cataloging
services. There are lots of things that it just doesn't make sense to
"do it yourself."
kc
>
> Chad
>
> On Apr 30, 2014 10:28 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>> In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
>>> similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
>>> Roy
>> Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same
> leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized that
> in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what we had
> was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an impossible
> task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be possible.
>> I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully
> resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is not
> as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can learn --
> that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, John" with title
> "Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's my book"). This is
> what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a lot of this when
> merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when determining what are
> works, and when bringing authority entries together for VIAF. No, you don't
> get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now with any of our services.
>> And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you
> walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and show
> you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake -- if you
> could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the bakery, you'd
> be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm talking cake, not
> cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the library and archives
> masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, wouldn't this be a good
> time to open a bakery?
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY
> of
>>>> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots
> of
>>>> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your
> data
>>>> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem
> today
>>>> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that
> some
>>>> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in
> their
>>>> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
>>>> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
>>>> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
>>>> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply
> is
>>>> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!"
> So
>>>> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public
> domain.
>>>>> Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be
> subject
>>>>> to
>>>>> individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or
> link
>>>>> to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work
> URIs)
>>>>> can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included
> in
>>>>> any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Roy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is
> no
>>>>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>>>>> identify
>>>>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>>>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tools such as xISBN <http://xisbn.worldcat.org/xisbnadmin/doc/api.htm>
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>>>>> volume
>>>>>> usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an
> OCLC
>>>>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of
> this.
>>>>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
>>>>>>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in
> some
>>>>>>> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
>>>>>>> a) is an OCLC member institution
>>>>>>> b) is not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>>>>>>>>>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>>>>>>>>>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest
> once
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> all:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to
>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> past in the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
>>>>>>>> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up
> as
>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open
> linked
>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>> world, then no one is paying attention.
>>>>>>>>> Roy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
>>>>>>>>> nuggets-of-linked-data/
>>>>>>>>> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers
> to
>>>>>>>> open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
>>>>>>>> of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
>>>>>>>> yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
>>>>>>>> Works page) :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
>>>>>>>> B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
>>>>>>>> licensing/questions.en.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Richard Wallis
>>>>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>>>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>>>>> Skype: richard.wallis1
>>>>>> Twitter: @rjw
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
