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

Re: Linked Library Holdings/Items

From: Lukas Koster <l.koster@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:43:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9E00FE.1040401@uva.nl>
To: public-lld@w3.org
I wrote some blog posts about this issue (FRBR, RDA and Linked Data) 
recently. Maybe they are of some use here:

- http://commonplace.net/2011/09/frbr-outside-the-box/
- http://commonplace.net/2011/03/missing-links/ (I mentioned this one on 
this list before)

Jakob is right when he says we don't have Expressions in our catalogues. 
Nor do we have Works. We only have Manifestations (=bibliographic 
records) and Items (holdings/items). Works and Expressions are implicit 
and repeated. It is virtually impossible to add these FRBR entities to 
existing systems, also with RDA.
Karen is right when saying that library linked data is about holdings 
information (unique data) that should be linked to web based 
bibliographic metadata.
This means we also need to replace existing introverted catalogue 
systems with new extroverted systems.

I will say something like this in my talk about RDA, FRBR and Linked 
Data at the Dutch RDA seminar November 2.

Lukas Koster

On 18-10-2011 18:41, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>:
>> Another reason why I do not care about frbr:Expression is that we just
>> don't have this distinction in our catalogues. We only have
>> bibliographic records and holdings items. The latter map to frbr:item,
>> but I am not sure about the former. So I better wait until we have
>> real world data that covers both expressions and manifestations.
> IMO, there will ALWAYS be real world data that does not adhere to FRBR's
> view of resources, in part because that view is overly divisive --
> essentially, it doesn't allow you to have creators or subjects unless
> you have a Work entity defined; nor to have a language of text unless
> you have an Expression. This is overkill for most bibliographic
> applications.
> It might be simpler, since your interest is in holdings, to create a
> non-FRBR item/holdings entity. This entity could include links to
> institutions along with the usual item identifiers (call numbers, bar
> codes, and such).
> What we then need is a good file of institution authority data with
> identifiers, locations, and contact information.
> I think that holdings information is absolutely vital to linking
> libraries to Web resources, at least as important as bibliographic data.
> After all, what's the use of linking bibliographic data if you can't
> then find what libraries can provide access? Linking libraries to the
> Web really means linking library holdings to the Web, with the
> bibliographic data as the linking method but the goal being the library
> location.
> For that reason I am very glad that Jakob has brought up this topic -- I
> am chagrined that we did not give this topic much importance in the LLD
> report, but it could become a first project for a community group on LLD
> if we can find volunteers to lead that effort.
> kc
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 22:43:41 UTC

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