- From: Lukas Koster <l.koster@uva.nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:05:08 +0200
- To: public-lld@w3.org
Hi, I would like to make a few brief comments, if you'll allow me. - LLD vs BLD: libraries (at least academic, scientific and research libraries) do not only have catalogues containing bibliographic data. They also have full text repositories, image databases, etc. Not sure if these are to be regarded as library data. But what else? Bibliographic catalogue (meta)data are not very important/spectacular in my view, because what would be the added value of all libraries publishing their bibliographic data individually? It's all just 'more of the same' as we say in Dutch. Of course this also applies to existing, non LD, bibliographic data. That's why lots of libraries already practice shared cataloguing. Only the unique data (holdings, copies, etc.) are really interesting in this respect. And of course the repositories etc. that I mentioned. Not really 'library' data, but what is library data in the future anyway? - Tools: yes please! Lots of smaller libraries do not have their own developer staff needed to do anything with linked data or similar. They need simple-to-use tools to either publish or use LOD. For instance, A smaller Dutch commercial library/museum system vendor, Adlib, is planning to add utilities to their ILS for publishing metadata as LOD. And I am hoping to do a session at this year's IGeLU (Ex Libris user group) meeting about 'Linked Data and Ex Libris products'), touching on needed utilities for both publishing and using linked data. Lukas Koster On 18-4-2011 7:53, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Karen Coyle<kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> Nice and concise, Jeff. > > +1 ! > >> >> I wonder, though, about our focus for this section and for the vocabularies >> section. The latter mixes LLD and BLD (B = bibliographic). If we agree >> that's a good scope then we should bring the "B" word into the report early >> on. I think it would be hard to separate library and bibliographic, >> especially when we are talking about linked data where the two will >> presumably blend together in actual use. >> >> The tools here seem to be general SemWeb tools, so to include these in our >> report we need to give a reason why they are here. > > You're right on this, Karen. > In the 1st place, we thought of including a "tools" section because > it's something that is needed and asked for by the community. Maybe > its place is not in the report, though. > This very interesting starting point created by Jeff could be > considered as a preview of what we recommend be elaborated - a list of > tools that can help create LLD. > It's also probably possible to state that one "requirement" for LLD is > that tools are available. A possible recommendation could be to > evaluate these tools, and check if they need be adapted for LLD. > > Also, maybe a better sense of what "tools" are expected is needed. I > suspect that people asking for tools in the library community are more > or less hoping that we will point them to a ready-made "marc-2-rdf" > converter, or a GUI for cataloguing books as triples, or even an > rdf-based OPAC. Not sure that developper tools will seem relevant to > them, what do you think ? > > Should we point in the report to experiments like Lukas' [1] or > initiatives like eXtensible Catalog [2] ? > > Emma > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Apr/0069.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0034.html > > > I don't know of any >> specific LLD tools, does anyone?. (The closest I can think of is the Open >> Metadata Registry, which has an input interface to RDA and other library >> vocabularies, but it also includes non-library vocabularies.) We could say >> that "tools are tools" and we don't have/expect LLD-specific tools, or we >> could say that LLD-specific tools will be built on these tools... >> >> kc >> >> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org>: >> >>> Here's a rough draft of the Relevant Technologies section that I >>> promised. It looks like the W3C keeps good lists of tools for several of >>> these categories, so I deferred to them whenever possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments, suggestions, and elaborations are welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Jeffrey A. Young >>> Software Architect >>> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410 >>> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. >>> 6565 Kilgour Place >>> Dublin, OH 43017-3395 >>> www.oclc.org<http://www.oclc.org> >>> >>> Voice: 614-764-4342 >>> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342 >>> Fax: 614-718-7477 >>> Email: jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 16:05:41 UTC