W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > August 2010

Re: RDA and ranges

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:55:37 -0700
Message-ID: <20100819065537.7047ntoeso8wk00c@kcoyle.net>
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:


> If legacy data cannot reasonably be modeled with these vocabularies (since
> the semantics are different) and the future of bibliographic control (
> http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf)
> is to incorporate data from communities outside of traditional cataloging,
> where is RDA-native data going to come from and who will be able to use it?

Wow. Totally nailed it, Ross.

We keep talking about RDA and FRBR and yet

1 - they aren't being used yet to create any data
2 - we have no machine-readable carrier for RDA/FRBR data
3 - we aren't in agreement about what the FRBR entities mean
4 - IFLA is still working on defining the FR family, and changes are  
still happening
5 - we have a *huge* body of bibliographic data in non-RDA and non-FRBR format

I've done some thinking about how we could define MARC elements in  
RDF, but I haven't gotten very far. However, if we are to create  
linked library data in any quantity before about 2020, we *are* going  
to need to do it without the advantages of RDA and FRBR. Where do we  
begin?!

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 13:56:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 13:56:13 GMT