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

Re: Linked data and library systems vendors

From: Lukas Koster <l.koster@uva.nl>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4E32794C.6040602@uva.nl>
To: public-lld@w3.org, Silke Schomburg <SCHOMBURG@hbz-nrw.de>, Corey Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu>, Ulrike Krabo <uk@obvsg.at>
My co-presenters of the "Linked Data and Ex Libris tools" session,
at the IGeLU (International Group ofEx Libris Users) 2011 conference in 
September, and I, came up with this preliminary set of Library Linked 
Data Recommendations for library system vendors, based on the 
presentations we will do there.

We are:

- Silke Schomburg, Director HBZ Library Consortium, Cologne, Germany
- Corey Harper, Metadata Services Librarian New York University 
Libraries, USA
- Ulrike Krabo, Developer Austrian Library Network (OBVSG), Vienna, Austria
- Lukas Koster, Library systems Coordinator Library of the University of 
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Maybe you can use this as input for the report.




- Open license for all library data in shared environments(‘community 
zones’, etc.)
- Encourage metadata providers to apply an open license to their metadata
- Build new shared cloud based metadata systems on linked open data 
architecture instead of creating new silos
- Apply a well-defined data model, such as FRBR, to internal metadata 
structure, providing the ‘Work’ as a unique identifier for linking
- Allow use of URIs as identifiers for Work, Author, Subjects, linking 
to external authority files (example: VIAF, LoC)
- Cataloguing=linking
- Use persistent, non-system-dependent, HTTP URIs for holdings and items

Publishing Library Linked Open Data

- Provide a streaming API to get library data in real time (for instance 
using XMPP)
- Provide access to administrative data (circulation, statistics, etc.) 
via streaming event-driven API
- Apply real open data/access
- Options to export all data in open formats
- Provide easy options for publishing library data as LOD in RDF or 
RDFa, using vocabularies
- Support use of content negotiation to provide multiple RDF serializations
- Provide SPARQL endpoint options

Using Library Linked Open Data

- Provide new search type besides federated, local, harvested: linked 
data search (options for example: crawling/harvesting; dereferencing on 
the fly; query federation)
- Provide mechanisms for consuming external linked data sources for 
display, indexing and metadata management functions
- Options to define/identify/discover trustworthy LOD sources/SPARQL 
endpoints to use
- Options to identify LOD sources to use based on for instance ‘subject’ 
- Automatic retrieval and processing of RDF vocabularies
- Options for defining SPARQL queries
- Options for retrieving and displaying LOD information for on the fly 
enrichment of Author, Title, Subject, etc.
- Options for enrichment of stored metadata based on LOD sources

On 27-7-2011 1:57, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting "Koster, Lukas" <L.Koster@uva.nl>:
>> Hi Karen,
>> One of the objectives of our IGeLU 2011 session is to identify a
>> number of recommendations for Ex Libris. My fellow presenters and me
>> already have draft versions of our slides including some
>> recommendations. A number of these obviously apply to MARC.
>> I will ask them about contributing this to the report. When is the
>> report meant to be published officially?
> Unfortunately, all too soon. End of August. So we're nearing our
> deadline for comments and changes. Still, if you could share some
> slides, that would be great.
> There will be an ongoing group at W3C with this topic (I believe it is
> termed a "community group") so there will be a place to continue this
> discussion. But I hope we can get these ideas into the report because
> they are very important.
> kc
>> Lukas
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 4:04 PM
>> To: public-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Linked data and library systems vendors
>> 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 Friday, 29 July 2011 09:12:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:44 UTC