W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Linked data and library systems vendors

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:04:18 -0700
Message-ID: <20110726070418.77183hjah6cuccpu@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Lukas, thank you for these comments. You are right that most library  
data is generated in vendor systems. Do you have an idea of specific  
recommendations that could be included in the report? Or is it that  
the report should be addressing its recommendations to "libraries and  
their vendors" rather than just "libraries"? What would make the most  
sense?

kc

Quoting "Koster, Lukas" <L.Koster@uva.nl>:

> I will be presenting a "Linked Data and Ex Libris tools" session,  
> together with a number of others, at the IGeLU (International Group  
> of Ex Libris Users) 2011 conference in September this year. See  
> session 9.1 in the online programme:  
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0ArJyygNQC2ECdEw1cnFpS2ZIZEozTDAzNUd4SnRmOEE&output=html
>
> I searched for some material that we could use there in the Draft  
> Report  
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion but  
> the only mention of library system vendors I can find is in Chapter  
> 6. "Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption": paragraph  
> 6.1.4. "Library technology has largely been implemented by a small  
> set of vendors".
>
> "Much of the technical expertise in the library community is  
> concentrated in the small number of vendors who provide the systems  
> and software that run library management functions as well as the  
> user discovery service. These vendor systems hold the bibliographic  
> data integrated into library management functions like acquisitions,  
> receipt of materials, user data, and circulation. Other technical  
> expertise exists primarily in large academic libraries where  
> development of independent discovery systems for local materials is  
> not uncommon. These latter systems are more likely to use mainstream  
> technologies for data creation and management, but they do not  
> represent the primary holdings of the library."
>
> That's all.
>
> In the Recommendations Chapter, especially paragraph 7.4 "Identify  
> and link" a number of essential actions are put forward, with which  
> I completely agree. However, the large majority of libraries use  
> library systems provided by commercial vendors, as is stated in  
> paragraph 6.1.4 (and I think the same considerations apply to open  
> source library systems), and these systems are not (yet) suitable  
> for adding URIs, explicit links, LD vocabularies. Meaning: most  
> libraries simply can't follow these recommendations.
>
> Paragraph 7.5.3 "Identify tools that support the creation and use of  
> LLD" focuses on tools for generating URIs, RDF etc. outside existing  
> library systems. Again, most libraries just can't do this.
>
> I would like to see some more recommendations focusing on "legacy"  
> library systems and vendors. This is what we're trying to do in our  
> IGeLU 2011 session. Also stop seeing these legacy systems and  
> vendors as "barriers to adoption" only. I know at least one  
> vendor/system that is actually working on linked data projects and  
> is planning to add LD publishing utilities to their existing legacy  
> system: Adlib - http://www.adlibsoftware.com/
>
> Lukas Koster
> Library Systems Coordinator
> Library and Information Systems Department
> Library of the University of Amsterdam
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 14:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 July 2011 14:04:51 GMT