Thanks to everyone for the conversation re: barriers to open metadata. Your feedback is really helpful! Laura On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 > -- Laura Krier laurapants.com<http://laurapants.com/?utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email>