W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > August 2010

Re: RDA and ranges

From: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:27:08 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikjF71UAme_EP_1UhLv9CTAvXinVy_8cggVP7ZJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Cc: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Why don't we start from where we are - we don't have to re-write cataloguing
rules to get some of the core data out there as linked data (do we?)

We already have (at least?) two examples of library catalogue data being
published as linked data (http://libris.kb.se and
http://nektar2.oszk.hu/librivision_eng.html). They go for a much simpler
approach to expressing the core bibliographic data as linked data. Although
I know this doesn't go as far as it might in terms of expressing the full
details, it does at least achieve URIs for entities and for the records -
which, of course, opens up the ability for others to make statements about
them, and to integrate other relevant linked data sources.

This would seem like a practical way forward, and not necessarily that
difficult I don't think - and of course in no way stops more complex
representations being developed and either replacing or adding to these
simpler representations. Also it seems likely that simple representations
(using DC, FOAF, Geo and maybe a few other common ontologies) is going to be
more useful in many cases.

Perhaps naively it seems to me that adding linked data/RDF representations
to open source resource discovery packages (e.g. VuFind, Blacklight)
wouldn't be a huge step - and if we could engage system vendors and get them
added to packages such as Encore, Primo, etc. even better. Where we are
seeing investment in library systems at the moment, much of it is in these
types of systems, so it seems like a real opportunity to me.


On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
>  If legacy data cannot reasonably be modeled with these vocabularies (since
>> the semantics are different) and the future of bibliographic control (
>> http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf
>> )
>> is to incorporate data from communities outside of traditional cataloging,
>> where is RDA-native data going to come from and who will be able to use
>> it?
> Wow. Totally nailed it, Ross.
> We keep talking about RDA and FRBR and yet
> 1 - they aren't being used yet to create any data
> 2 - we have no machine-readable carrier for RDA/FRBR data
> 3 - we aren't in agreement about what the FRBR entities mean
> 4 - IFLA is still working on defining the FR family, and changes are still
> happening
> 5 - we have a *huge* body of bibliographic data in non-RDA and non-FRBR
> format
> I've done some thinking about how we could define MARC elements in RDF, but
> I haven't gotten very far. However, if we are to create linked library data
> in any quantity before about 2020, we *are* going to need to do it without
> the advantages of RDA and FRBR. Where do we begin?!
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Received on Friday, 20 August 2010 08:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:57 UTC