Re: Recommendation: Plan for migration

On 29 Apr 2011, at 15:41, Karen Coyle wrote:

> I like this distinction between "publish" and "migrate". We've been talking in the group about how to talk about these differences.
> 
> I think if we do this, though, we have to address the fact that "publish" is going to be a rather poor expression of LLD because the underlying data format isn't as rich or flexible. In particular, it lacks the ability to create many of the links that one would like.

> So then it becomes a two-step process: publish from non-LD formats, then add links/relationships in the LD environment.

Tom has been using "translate". It's a useful concept, because we know that there are different kinds of translations, which are better or worse for some purposes.

"Publish" and "migrate" make sense to me. But see whether, additionally, a discussion of "translate" and the different kinds of translations is relevant where these are discussed.

> We discussed this in terms of costs: what are the relative costs of publishing and THEN creating links v. having our systems use LD directly? It occurs to me that there are a variety of possible options, including the reverse of "publish": that we create LD and that some of the properties from LD are then used to populate the library systems needed for inventory, circulation, and other functions that focus on physical items.

These options -- and the variety of approaches -- deserve discussion somewhere, but I'm not sure it's the recommendations. Yet recognizing the variety itself will affect how the recommendations are read -- so I'm keen on seeing a short discussion of this somewhere in the report.

-Jodi

> 
> kc
> 
> Quoting Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>:
> 
>> Such a plan could also involve 2 steps :
>> 
>> Step 1. publish at least part of the data as Linked Data, without
>> challenging the data production process
>> Step 2. migrate all the data production process to LD technologies.
>> 
>> The first step is quite straightforward & easy to accomplish.
>> Do you think no plan is needed for this first step ? In that case, the
>> plan you describe would be aimed only at achieving the complete
>> migration. It needs to be explicit, though.
>> 
>> Emma
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>> (You've probably noticed that these recommendations are not in any
>>> particular order. I'm sending them out as we feel they have been
>>> sufficiently worked over by the group.)
>>> 
>>> ****
>>> 
>>> Plan for migration to LLD: technical, managerial, and intellectual
>>> 
>>> A migration to Linked Data for library and cultural heritage metadata will
>>> likely be a lengthy and highly distributed effort. The length of time to
>>> perform the migration will be large because of the number of activities:
>>> emergence of best practices for LLD, creation and adoption of new software,
>>> consensus on global identifiers and deduplication strategies, and so forth.
>>> A plan must be drawn up that stages activities in ways that allow innovators
>>> to participate sooner while paving the path for the late majority adopters
>>> to make use of the work later. Adoption of the plan would also reduce
>>> duplication of effort as the community moves from a self-contained,
>>> record-based approach to a worldwide graph approach for bibliographic data.
>>> 
>>> One question to be addressed in a plan is whether conversion can be done in
>>> managed stages. For instance: First create globally unique URIs for each
>>> record. Then, if necessary, automatically create WEMI URIs for each record.
>>> Next, "map" attributes/fields to existing properties (or create appropriate
>>> new ones). Lastly, "map" object values to existing URIs where appropriate,
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> Another possible path is a pure MARC ontology to create linked data from
>>> legacy records without thinking about linked data. That is, a very
>>> preliminary, high-level map that produces triples like <my:RecordID>
>>> <marc:100a> <"Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826"> without any attempt to
>>> substitute an existing URI for the predicate or object. This would help very
>>> large scale data dumps that others could subsequently work on.
>>> 
>>> Each of these plans has costs and benefits that should be studied and
>>> understood as part of the transition to linked data, taking into account the
>>> investment that libraries have in their current systems and economic
>>> factors.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> 

Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 14:56:59 UTC