- From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:53:20 +0100
- To: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
In message <AANLkTikjF71UAme_EP_1UhLv9CTAvXinVy_8cggVP7ZJ@mail.gmail.com>, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> writes >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. Can you point to where their linked data is to be found? It's not obvious from the URLs provided. >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. Absolutely: give the world a set of pegs on which to hang their own assertions about bibliographic materials. As you broaden out the audience for this data beyond librarians, most of the data in a MARC record won't be of interest in any case. >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. That's one approach: another is to stick with the project of developing a coherent bibliographic ontology, using e.g. FRBRoo to tie in with other areas of cultural heritage. Richard -- Richard Light
Received on Friday, 20 August 2010 08:54:51 UTC