Re: Comments on LLD from ExLibris

I read both of these over the weekend and have struggled with how to
formulate a response to either of them.  Carl's post is completely
unsurprising (it looks like it could have been ghost written by Stephen
Abrams a few years ago) and it also shows how potentially disruptable a
market the library market could be (that is, if anybody would want to
bother).  I think it also shows libraries that they need to be extremely
wary of who they are dependent upon to help solve their problems.  It also,
despite all of Carl's claims that "of course we're paying attention to
this", seemed really, really thin on actual knowledge of what linked data is
and what that brings to the table (and Ed's post seemed devoid of it) and
blame for that I place squarely in our camp.

Like Jeff pointed out, the real wins are the shared vocabularies and
identifiers; those shouldn't be terribly controversial ideas.  What, then,
about that message isn't getting to people and how can we improve that?  I
think it's easy to bury the the story in lot of FUD around how we'll need
entirely new technology stacks and unproven methods of sharing data (which,
of course, is nonsense, but, certainly, the details would need to be worked
out) while if, instead, the focus was on the parts that people can
(theoretically) agree upon we at least improve the status quo and begin
priming the pump towards a better future.

I think there's a really simple rebuttal to Ed's "I have never heard a
student or professor come to me with a problem that linked data will solve
more completely or more efficiently then other solutions".  If we had
relationships between authors for the things in our collections and in our
databases (for example, VIAF->ORCID), we could intelligently provide
articles by a particular author.  Or with dbpedia (or similar), we can also
identify the authors/works influenced by the current author/work.

Maybe people aren't asking for this, but everybody knows you don't people
what they ask for, you give them what you think they want, just ask Carl
Grant :)

-Ross.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> I think that the flaw in Ed's wait-and-see attitude is that Linked Data has
> more to do with interoperable vocabularies and shared identifiers than it
> does with Web protocol. Can the vendors and consumers adapt to shared
> vocabularies, will they roll their own, will they be over-engineered, will
> they be mapped to one another and other domains, etc? Even if the domain
> experts and ontology experts agree on the best model(s), is it possible to
> force programmers to use those terms? How do we convince everyone that
> they're currently babbling?
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 11:05 AM
> > To: public-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Comments on LLD from ExLibris
> >
> > Thanks, Till. Edward Corrado also posted about it on his blog:
> >
> > http://blog.ecorrado.us/2011/08/05/library-linked-data/
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> > Quoting Till Kinstler <kinstler@gbv.de>:
> >
> > > Am 04.08.2011 18:15, schrieb Karen Coyle:
> > >
> > >> Carl Grant asked me to post the text of his blog post here, which I
> > >> should have thought of. This way it's in our email record, and it
> > may
> > >> make discussion here more "fluid." Thanks, Carl.
> > >
> > > Yes, thanks to Carl Grant for writing this blog post, because it
> > really
> > > gives some answers...
> > > And it adds well to Lukas Koster's email from a few days back, where
> > he
> > > raised the question about the role of library software vendors in the
> > > linked data world...
> > >
> > >> The Library Linked Data Model ? from a librarian/vendor point of
> > view
> > >> by Carl Grant, Chief Librarian, Ex Libris Group
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> I was at the ELAG 2011 conference in Prague in the Czech Republic
> > >> recently and was sitting on a panel when an attendee asked the
> > vendor
> > >> organizations on the panel (a representative of OCLC and me):  What
> > were
> > >> our plans concerning Library Linked Data?
> > >
> > > I think this refers to my question in that discussion at ELAG.
> > > I think, I formulated the question a bit different, not directly
> > > referring to linked data. I asked in a very open way, what vendor's
> > > plans for future data models are in their new "cloudy" systems, when
> > one
> > > of the major topics at ELAG 2011 were the problems with current data
> > > practices. We had a "MARC must die" workshop there, at the same time,
> > > LoC published its statement on the transformation of "the
> > bibliographic
> > > framework", and at least every second contribution to ELAG 2011 was
> > > about necessary change in current data library data practices.
> > Overall
> > > it is perhaps well (though a bit pathetically) summarized in this
> > > statement by Anders Söderbäck:
> > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tillk/5775197941/ (in his presentation
> > in
> > > the same session on the future of library systems that Carl is
> > referring
> > > to).
> > > With my question, I wanted to see, if vendors are aware of the
> > problems
> > > we discussed at ELAG and if they somehow see some connection with
> > linked
> > > data.
> > > For me (and many others), it was disappointing, that the vendors
> > didn't
> > > really give an answer (beyond "we support XML and N different record
> > > formats" and stressing the "openness" of the cloud data collections).
> > > They didn't mention linked data or conceptual shifts from a record
> > > centred to a graph (statement/link) oriented view, not even as
> > something
> > > to consider or by saying "that's just a hype". And we were talking
> > about
> > > library systems we will build our future on...
> > > So thank you, Carl, again for this blog post. That gives good
> > answers.
> > > Something like that would have contributed to the discussion at ELAG
> > 2011..
> > >
> > >> It is a very important
> > >> contribution to the development of new technology and helps to bring
> > >> ideas to life.  However, at this stage, for a vendor, it doesn?t
> > help to
> > >> pay our staff or bills.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I suspect. And that's a totally fine and legitimate
> > > view for a vendor...
> > > But then the question then is: Who drives innovation in libraryland?
> > > Carl's blog post lists 4 good points, telling us, why vendors tend to
> > be
> > > careful in the library world.
> > > And in the 4th point he mentions some common concerns about (open)
> > > community processes as well.
> > > So, but where does innovation come from, then?
> > > Could it be a solution, that vendors become (better) part of the
> > (open)
> > > community processes?
> > >
> > >> Conceptually, we?re on board with the ideas behind the Library
> > Linked
> > >> Data model and in fact, we?re designing our new system Alma with the
> > >> necessary capabilities at the core to support the Library Linked
> > Data
> > >> model.
> > >
> > > That's good to hear. Because we are going to build the future of our
> > > library business on these systems in the foreseeable future...
> > >
> > > Just my 2 Cents...
> > >
> > > Again, thank you, Carl, for sharing this blog post,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > --
> > > Till Kinstler
> > > Verbundzentrale des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes (VZG)
> > > Platz der Göttinger Sieben 1, D 37073 Göttingen
> > > kinstler@gbv.de, +49 (0) 551 39-13431, http://www.gbv.de
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> >
>
>
>
>