Re: SchemaBibEx and BIBFRAME Mission = Library-centric

Note that there is a collection of examples that has been started that are library-centric:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 6, 2013, at 10:53 AM, "Tom Adamich" <vls@tusco.net<mailto:vls@tusco.net>> wrote:

Thanks, Karen, for leading this discussion back to the "library-centric"
mission of both SchemaBibEx and BIBFRAME.  Yes, the metadata has the
potential to be leveraged in other environments (including commercial
enterprise); however, I agree with your request to remain on task and
reminding us of the timeframe associated with this group's work.

...Lead on:)

Tom

Tom Adamich, MLS
President
Visiting Librarian Service
P.O. Box 932
New Philadelphia, OH 44663
330-364-4410
vls@tusco.net<mailto:vls@tusco.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 5:35 PM
To: public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Kill the Record! (Was: BIBFRAME and schema.org<http://schema.org>)

Corey, I share your fear about over-engineering. I tend to put use of
productOntology in that category, though, because examples I've seen make
use of greater detail than I think we currently represent in library data
online -- and I'm not convinced that more detail is needed.
Users seem to care about whether something is print, online, or on disk
(DVD, CD). We've started mixing books and articles (print and online) in our
discovery systems, and users seem comfortable with that. I suspect that they
favor "can I get it now?" as a primary selection criterion.
Hardback and paperback? Not so much.

This is why I'd like to understand better what publishers need, since they
have a different use case: different versions and formats have different
prices, and they need to show that. For a library, I doubt if "paperback"
and "hardback" are deciding selection factors for users.
When I see examples that have these in them it is a bit jarring, especially
since that data isn't reliably coded in our records.

I would prefer to initially base schema.org<http://schema.org> thinking on library
*displays* rather than library *records*. It's rather astonishing how little
of what is coded in MARC ends up on the screen in the basic user displays,
as well as how little of it feeds indexing. I second an earlier comment by
Ed Summers that we should concentrate on what we can do today with
schema.org<http://schema.org>, and add to it as library data online undergoes changes that
require new capabilities. Current displays are a place to start, and once we
have conquered those we can move on. Remember, this group is supposed to
disband in Fall of 2013.

Thus, once again, can we look at holdings displays and come up with a
reasonable solution? I think that schema.org<http://schema.org> has a good 90% or more of what
we need for basic bibliographic description. But getting users to library
holdings isn't yet covered.

kc



On 7/5/13 1:16 PM, Corey A Harper wrote:
Hi Karen,

I take your point, and agree that it's really a question of what we
intend to convey. I just worry very much that this group has been
inclined to over-engineer much of this, and as a result will render it
not very useful to anyone outside of a very small group -- ostensibly
the same very small group that are perfectly comfortable with MARC now.
If that's what we're trying to do, then honestly, my vote becomes to
just stick with MARC -- we don't gain much if we decide to build
something new from whole cloth instead of looking seriously at the
patterns that others--those we want to work with--are already using.
That said, I checked some schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> deployments of
books (kmart & B&N) and found no product typing at all, so it could be
that common usage hasn't been established yet.

I agree re: availability of statistics. I suspect we may have to rely on
ourselves for that. I often mention commoncrawl here, but will again, as
they make 40 TB worth of data from over 5 billion web pages available,
have it hosted on AWS, and even provide tutorials for running EC2 Map
Reduce jobs against it:
http://aws.amazon.com/datasets/41740
http://commoncrawl.org/mapreduce-for-the-masses/

I suspect searching for the productontology.org<http://productontology.org>
<http://productontology.org> prefix somewhere in microdata or rdfa
across the full set would probably cost a couple hundred bucks on EC2,
though. If someone had 40TB of space kicking around in a hadoop cluster
of their own, though....

My gut feeling, regardless, is that YES, we should use that "Monographic
Series" article, as well as others. If we make this a prominent usage
pattern, I believe the library community will spend the time cleaning
these articles up, and adding new ones where there are gaps. Perhaps in
the process we make both WikiPedia AND the Product Ontology AND
schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> better than they are now.

-Corey




On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:

   Cory, I don't think that what I propose is "non-conforming." I think
   we need to make choices amongst the conforming ones. I assume that
   we will be making some kind of cross-walk from library data to
   schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>, and that best practice will be that
   coded format x (e.g. from the LDR or 007 in MARC) will have a
   defined value in schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> that means
   approximately the same thing. Do we choose "paperback", "mass
   paperback" or just "book"? It really is a question of what we intend
   to convey with the schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> data, what we see
   it linking to most usefully, what is most accurate, and what is
   going to be easiest to produce.

   As an example, if you look at that list on WP you see that it has
   "book series", which is primarily what libraries would call
   "readers' series" - Harry Potter, "A is for Alibi...," "Narnia",
   etc. So although it says "series" it isn't the same as what is in an
   8XX field. There IS an article for "monographic series". The
   monographic series article is pretty piss-poor, however, and needs a
   serious amount of work. Should we use it as is? Does it represent
   the same concept as the 8XX fields?

   I love WP, I do, but there's a great variation in the quality of the
   pages. Nothing on WP can be taken at face value - we need to be
   smart about it, and even pro-active, if we are to take WP links to
   be *definitional* of our data elements. I'm not comfortable with
   assuming that any page on WP is by definition authoritative. (I'm in
   the midst of a huge revision of the DDC pages which were TOTALLY
   inaccurate, so this is something I'm painfully aware of at the
   moment.) In addition, we will have to make choices when WP divides
   the world differently from us.

   Finally, although productontology is available for use, it isn't the
   only possibility. I know that Jeff favors it, but we need to keep an
   eye on practice to see if it becomes standard practice, and if it is
   used by search engines. I hope that some statistics will be
   available that provide guidance.

   kc


   On 7/5/13 10:57 AM, Corey A Harper wrote:

       Hi Karen,

       Can you say a bit more about "I'm not convinced, having looked
       at some
       of the pages, that WP shares the conceptual model that we'll
       find in our
       data."? I'm not sure I understand what problems you foresee, nor
       what
       you believe the ramifications of those problems to be.

       I struggle with the idea that "..we then need to develop some best
       practices for library data, knowing that non-library data will
       take its
       own direction." I'm rather averse to maintaining our own little,
       non-conforming corner of the Web without a really clear
       understanding of
       the impact--on users--of this perceived conceptual
incompatibility.

       Thanks,
       -Corey



       On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> wrote:

            Yes, Jeff, I realize that. I had rather hoped for a link
       that you
            had found useful for books, like:

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/____Category:Books_by_type
       <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Category:Books_by_type>

            <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Category:Books_by_type
       <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_type>>

            Naturally, this is a mish-mosh of physical types (paperback),
            product types (mass-market paperback), genres (airport
       novel) and
            topics (book size). I don't know if there is a better
approach
            within WP.

            While it is great that these Wikipedia pages exist, I think
       before
            using them we should look beyond their titles to the
       content of the
            pages to make sure that WP and our metadata are talking
       about the
            same thing. I'm not convinced, having looked at some of the
       pages,
            that WP shares the conceptual model that we'll find in our
       data.
            With that as a starting point, we then need to develop some
       best
            practices for library data, knowing that non-library data
       will take
            its own direction.

            I would like to hear from anyone in the publishing
       community about
            their needs for specification of product types. I assume
       that the
            preferred list would original in ONIX.

            kc


            On 7/5/13 8:50 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

                You can think of the option like this: Anything in
       Wikipedia can be
                treated as an owl:Class by changing the URI prefix. For
       example,
                this
                Wikipedia page describes murals:

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/____Mural
       <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Mural>

                <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Mural
       <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mural>>

                In contrast, you can say something *is* a mural by
       using this
                hacked URI
                in an rdf:type:

       http://www.productontology.____org/id/Mural

                <http://www.productontology.__org/id/Mural
       <http://www.productontology.org/id/Mural>>

                Jeff

                Sent from my iPad

                On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "Karen Coyle"
       <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
                <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
                <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>>> wrote:

                    What are the options provided by productontology?

                    kc

                    On 7/5/13 8:26 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

                        True. This list has always seemed simplistic to
me,
                        though. As you've
                        suggested, EBook in particular deserves to be
       treated as
                        a class so
                        more detailed properties can be included. The
       other two
                        are just the
                        tip if the iceberg.

                        Sent from my iPad

                        On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, "Karen Coyle"
                        <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
                        <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>>>

                        wrote:

                            Note that schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
       <http://schema.org>
                            <http://schema.org> has

       http://schema.org/____BookFormatType
       <http://schema.org/__BookFormatType>
                            <http://schema.org/__BookFormatType
       <http://schema.org/BookFormatType>>, which has


                            Ebook
                            Hardback
                            Paperback

                            kc

                            On 7/5/13 7:43 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

                                For paperbacks and similar things, I've
       started
                                using Product Ontology
                                to tag the item/manifestation
       descriptions for
                                example:

                                @prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> .
                                @prefix pto:
                                <http://www.productontology.____org/id/

                                <http://www.productontology.__org/id/
       <http://www.productontology.org/id/>>> .

                                :book1
                                     a schema:Book, schema:ProductModel,
                                pto:Paperback ;
                                     etc.

                                The coverage isn't perfect, but it has
the
                                advantage of being backed up
                                by Wikipedia.

                                Jeff

                                Sent from my iPad

                                On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:35 AM, "Ross
Singer"
                                <rxs@talis.com<mailto:rxs@talis.com> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>
                                <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com> <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>>

                                <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com> <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>>>
                                wrote:

                                    On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:25 AM,
       "Young,Jeff
                                    (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>
                                    <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
                                    <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>>

                                    <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
                                    <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
       <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>>> wrote:


                                        Aside, I would argue that the
       defining
                                        characteristic of Item is that
                                        it has "location". For physical
       items
                                        that location can be determined
                                        by geolocation (for example).
       For Web
                                        items (aka Web documents), the
                                        location can be determined by
       its URL.


                                    +1

                                    I would say there are arguably more
       defining
                                    characteristics than that
                                    (I'm still going to argue that
       "paperback"
                                    isn't actually a part of
                                    the manifestation, simply an
       inference of
                                    the sum of the format of the
                                    items), but this, I would argue, is
                                    definitely the least common
                                    denominator and applies well for
       our entity
                                    model in schema.org<http://schema.org>
       <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
                                    <http://schema.org>
                                    <http://schema.org>.

                                    -Ross.


                                        Jeff

                                        Sent from my iPad

                                        On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Ross
                                        Singer" <rxs@talis.com<mailto:rxs@talis.com>
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>
                                        <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>
                                        <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>
                                        <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>>

                                        <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>
                                        <mailto:rxs@talis.com
       <mailto:rxs@talis.com>>>> wrote:

                                            But this all really how
       many angels
                                            can fit on the head of a pin,
                                            isn't it?

                                            We've already established
       that we're
                                            not interested in defining
any
                                            strict interpretation of
       FRBR in
       schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
                                            <http://schema.org>
                                            <http://schema.org/>:
                                            we're just trying to define
       a way to
                                            describe things in HTML that
                                            computers can parse.

                                            Yes, I think we need to
       establish
                                            what an item is, no I don't
       think
                                            we have to use FRBR as a
       strict guide.

                                            -Ross.

                                            On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM,
       James
                                            Weinheimer
                                            <weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>

       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@__gmail.com
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>>
                                            <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@>__gma__il.com <http://gmail.com>

       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@__gmail.com
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>>>
                                            <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@>__gma__il.com <http://gmail.com>


       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@__gmail.com
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>>>> wrote:

                                                On 05/07/2013 13:30,
       Ross Singer
                                                wrote:
                                                <snip>


                                                    I guess I don't
       understand
                                                    why offering epub,
       pdf, and html
                                                    versions of the same
                                                    resource doesn't
       constitute
                                                    "items".

                                                    If you look at an
       article in
       arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org>
                                                    <http://arxiv.org>

       <http://arxiv.org/>, for
                                                    example, where else
       in WEMI
                                                    would you put the
       available file
                                                    formats?

                                                    Basically, format
       should be
                                                    tied to the item,
       although for
                                                    physical items, any
                                                    manifestation's
       item will
                                                    generally be the
                                                    same format (although
I
                                                    don't see why a
       scan of a
                                                    paperback would
                                                    become a new
endeavor,
                                                    honestly).

                                                    In the end, I don't
       see how
                                                    digital is any
       different
                                                    than print in
                                                    this regard.

                                                </snip>

                                                Because manifestations
are
                                                defined by their format
       (among other
                                                things). Therefore, a
       movie of,
                                                e.g. Moby Dick that is a
                                                videocassette is
       considered to
                                                be a different
       manifestation from
                                                that of a DVD. Each one
is
                                                described separately.
       So, if you
                                                have
                                                multiple copies of the
same
                                                format for the same
content
                                                those are
                                                called copies. But if
       you have
                                                different formats for
       the same
                                                content, those are
       different
                                                manifestations.

                                                The examples in
       arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org>
                                                <http://arxiv.org>
                                                <http://arxiv.org>
                                                <http://arxiv.org/> are
       just like I
                                                mentioned in
       archive.org<http://archive.org> <http://archive.org>
                                                <http://archive.org>
                                                <http://archive.org>
                                                <http://archive.org/>
       and they
                                                follow a
                                                different sort of
       structure. You
                                                do not see this in a
       library
                                                catalog, where each
       format will
                                                get a different
       manifestation, so
                                                that each format can be
       described.

                                                As a result, things
       work quite
                                                differently. Look for
       e.g. Moby Dick
                                                in Worldcat, and you
       will see
                                                all kinds of formats
       available
                                                in the
                                                left-hand column.

https://www.worldcat.org/____search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=____moby+dick

<https://www.worldcat.org/__search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=__moby+dick>



<https://www.worldcat.org/__search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=__moby+dick
       <https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick>>

                                                When you click on an
       individual
                                                record,
       http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/____62208367
       <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/__62208367>


       <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/__62208367
       <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367>>
                                                you will see where all
       of the
                                                copies of this
       particular format
                                                of this particular
       expression are
                                                located. This is the
                                                manifestation. And its
       purpose
                                                is to organize
                                                all of the *copies*, as
       is done
                                                here.

                                                In the IA, we see
something
                                                different:
       http://archive.org/details/____mobydickorwhale02melvuoft
       <http://archive.org/details/__mobydickorwhale02melvuoft>

       <http://archive.org/details/__mobydickorwhale02melvuoft
       <http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft>>,

                                                where this
                                                display brings together
the
                                                different
       manifestations: pdf, text,
                                                etc. There is no
       corresponding
                                                concept in FRBR for
       what we see in
                                                the Internet Archive, or
in
       arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org>
                                                <http://arxiv.org>
                                                <http://arxiv.org/>.

                                                I am not complaining or
       finding
                                                fault, but what I am
       saying is that
                                                the primary reason this
       sort of
                                                thing works for digital
       materials
                                                is because there are no
       real
                                                "duplicates". (There
       are other
                                                serious
                                                problems that I won't
       mention
                                                here) In my opinion,
       introducing the
                                                Internet Archive-type
       structure
                                                into a library-type
       catalog based
                                                on physical materials
with
                                                multitudes of copies
would
                                                result in a
                                                completely incoherent
hash.

                                                This is why I am saying
       that
                                                FRBR does not translate
       well to
                                                digital materials on
       the internet.

                                                Getting rid of the
       concept of
                                                the "record" has been
       the supposed
                                                remedy, but it seems to
       me that
                                                the final result (i.e.
       what the
                                                user will experience)
       will still
                                                be the incoherent mash
       I mentioned
                                                above: where
       innumerable items
                                                and multiple
       manifestations will be
                                                mashed together. Perhaps
                                                somebody could come up
       with a
                                                way to make
                                                this coherent and
       useful, but I
                                                have never seen
       anything like it
                                                and cannot imagine how
       it could
                                                work.
                                                --
                                                *James Weinheimer*
       weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>

       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@__gmail.com
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>>

       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@>__gma__il.com <http://gmail.com>

       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@__gmail.com
       <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>>>

                                                *First Thus*
       http://catalogingmatters.__blo__gspot.com/ <http://blogspot.com/>


       <http://catalogingmatters.__blogspot.com/
       <http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/>>
                                                *First Thus Facebook
Page*
       https://www.facebook.com/____FirstThus
       <https://www.facebook.com/__FirstThus>


       <https://www.facebook.com/__FirstThus
       <https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus>>
                                                *Cooperative Cataloging
       Rules*
       http://sites.google.com/site/____opencatalogingrules/
       <http://sites.google.com/site/__opencatalogingrules/>


       <http://sites.google.com/site/__opencatalogingrules/
       <http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/>>
                                                *Cataloging Matters
       Podcasts*

http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/____cataloging-matters-podcasts.____html

<http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/__cataloging-matters-podcasts.__html>



<http://blog.jweinheimer.net/__p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.__html
       <http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html>>




                            --
                            Karen Coyle
       kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
                            <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
                            <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> http://kcoyle.net

                            ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
       <tel:1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>>
                            m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
       <tel:1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>>

                            skype: kcoylenet






                    --
                    Karen Coyle
       kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
                    <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>>
       http://kcoyle.net

                    ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
       <tel:1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>>
                    m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
       <tel:1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>>

                    skype: kcoylenet



            --
            Karen Coyle
       kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
       <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
       http://kcoyle.net
            ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596> <tel:1-510-540-7596
       <tel:1-510-540-7596>>
            m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel:1-510-435-8234
       <tel:1-510-435-8234>>

            skype: kcoylenet




       --
       Corey A Harper
       Metadata Services Librarian
       New York University Libraries
       20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
       New York, NY 10003-7112
       212.998.2479 <tel:212.998.2479>
       corey.harper@nyu.edu<mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu> <mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>
       <mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu <mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>>


   --
   Karen Coyle
   kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
   ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
   m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
   skype: kcoylenet




--
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479 <tel:212.998.2479>
corey.harper@nyu.edu<mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu> <mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>

--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 15:33:46 UTC