Re: Library data diagram

Gordon:


  In other words, Bob needs to
> find and identify "all resources embodying the same expression".
>  
> However, that's essentially a use case for the ICP itself, and translating it
> into something relevant to linked-data (other than a generic observation that
> linked-data helps) may be difficult.

Yes, I ran into the same thing when I tried thinking it through. I  
think linked data offers an expansion of the ICP goals. Library  
catalogs may be able to allow you to identify all available resources  
for the same expression, but LLD will be able to allow users to  
navigate through different translations, through transformations into  
different formats and media, and hopefully even to follow paths of  
"cites/cited by" to explore the transfer of knowledge through time.  
Just as the web is moving from a web of documents to a web of data,  
library catalogs could move from contiguous records to actual  
connections based on the information about the resources. I think our  
definitions of functional requirements have been limited by our vision  
of our data.

>  
  For
> example, the property "is based on (name)" has domain CAP and range   
> Name, so we
> can infer from an instance triple "X is based on (name) Y" that X is  
>  a CAP. Note
> that X and Y may have the same label (that is, the Name Y does not   
> require any
> addition to its label to make it a CAP); the distinction is made on the
> assumption that some Agency (another FRAD class) has applied a specific Rule
> (another FRAD class) to the Name in order to generate the CAP.

I look forward to the FRAD documentation becoming available, but as it  
is not at the moment it's very hard for any of us outside of the  
immediate FRAD committee to make sense of it. I am concerned about the  
use of "name" in earlier versions that I saw, because it appears that  
a display form is being used as an identifier. I hope that is not the  
case. The use of "real" identifiers should allow us to place less  
emphasis on display forms. I have to admit that I have doubts about  
the need for "controlled access points" in this new environment, based  
as they are on the construction of specific text strings that function  
as identifiers. But this is based on my reading of RDA, not FRAD.

However, in general I think that we need to make the transition from  
"things" to "relationships." As an example, most catalogers would  
consider an author to be a thing, rather than a person with a  
relationship to a resource. It's a more of a viewpoint change than an  
actual change in how decisions are made when creating the library  
metadata.

kc


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

Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 16:16:36 UTC