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

Re: Metadata guidelines for the UK RDTF (Resource Discovery Task Force)

From: Monica Duke <lismab@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:50:32 +0000
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D65D26C3-AE9A-4EF4-951D-343B8CED7270@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>

On 10 Feb 2011, at 09:14, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Hi Monica,
> 
> That seems very relevant indeed. I did not have time to read it all, but could it be that some observations feed into our own report?

Hi Antoine,

I see that some of the XG members have been responding to the document in the comments.  

I think some of the questions posed by the authors of the guidelines may be seen as typifying the sorts of questions that decision makers currently face e.g. Question from the authors: Is the strong encouragement to use FRBR here problematic for the library community? 
 and 'Question from the authors: The current recommendation to model using FRBR, CIDOC CRM and EAD is quite open. Do we want to recommend a particular way of modelling these standards in RDF?'

From 'Data Model Guidelines'[1] in the comments stream.

Ralph Le Van responded 'Iíve not seen a consensus model for FRBR as RDF, so if you have one, please publicize it and recommend its use.'

Some of the subsequent discussion in that set of comments was around FRBR as an appropriate model (rather than on linked data), and pointers were provided to ISBD, RDA

[1] http://rdtfmetadata.jiscpress.org/data-model-guidelines/

> Also, the Resource Discovery Taskforce vision [1] looks like a use case. But it does not seem to be in the JISC open bibliographic data use cases from last year. Or am I mistaken?
> 

I am not sure (but have not gone to check the Open bibliographic cases!) - I'll try and find out from Paul who I think has better knowledge of both.

Monica


> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/475/1/JISC%26RLUK_VISION_FINAL.pdf
> 
> 
>> I'm mentioning this initiative as it is proposing RDF and linked data as approaches, not sure how it links in with the work of this incubator group - perhaps just as an initiative to be aware of.
>> 
>> "This DRAFT document provides a set of guidelines for how metadata associated with library, museum and archival collections should be made available for the purposes of supporting resource discovery in line with the Resource Discovery Taskforce (RDTF) Vision."
>> 
>> http://rdtfmetadata.jiscpress.org/
>> 
>> The draft is inviting comments on the approach - in case any one wants to comment, I think they would want primarily comments from the intended producers of the data (I think libraries, museum and archival collections in the UK would be in scope), however the perspective of any potential consumers may also be helpful (even if not from the UK).
>> 
>> "The guidelines themselves suggest that RDTF metadata should be made openly available using one (or more) of three approaches, referred to as 1) the community formats approach, 2) the RDF data approach and 3) the Linked Data approach. The guidelines do not consider issues of compliance. In line with the vision, these guidelines primarily concern scenarios in which metadata is aggregated as the basis of resource discovery initiatives, though no assumptions are made about the scope or scale of such activities."
>> 
>> A blog post from Andy Powell and Pete Johnston about the initiative provides more context:
>> http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2011/02/metadata-guidelines-for-the-uk-rdtf.html
>> 
>> Any other questions or comments that are not made through the 'comments on the draft facility' should be sent to Andy Powell: andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Monica
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:54:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:54:26 GMT