RE: Linked data and library systems vendors

Hi Karen,

One of the objectives of our IGeLU 2011 session is to identify a number of recommendations for Ex Libris. My fellow presenters and me already have draft versions of our slides including some recommendations. A number of these obviously apply to MARC.
I will ask them about contributing this to the report. When is the report meant to be published officially?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Linked data and library systems vendors

Lukas, thank you for these comments. You are right that most library data is generated in vendor systems. Do you have an idea of specific recommendations that could be included in the report? Or is it that the report should be addressing its recommendations to "libraries and their vendors" rather than just "libraries"? What would make the most sense?


Quoting "Koster, Lukas" <>:

> I will be presenting a "Linked Data and Ex Libris tools" session, 
> together with a number of others, at the IGeLU (International Group of 
> Ex Libris Users) 2011 conference in September this year. See session 
> 9.1 in the online programme:
> 0ArJyygNQC2ECdEw1cnFpS2ZIZEozTDAzNUd4SnRmOEE&output=html
> I searched for some material that we could use there in the Draft 
> Report 
> but the only mention of library system vendors I can find is in 
> Chapter 6. "Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption": 
> paragraph 6.1.4. "Library technology has largely been implemented by a 
> small set of vendors".
> "Much of the technical expertise in the library community is 
> concentrated in the small number of vendors who provide the systems 
> and software that run library management functions as well as the user 
> discovery service. These vendor systems hold the bibliographic data 
> integrated into library management functions like acquisitions, 
> receipt of materials, user data, and circulation. Other technical 
> expertise exists primarily in large academic libraries where 
> development of independent discovery systems for local materials is 
> not uncommon. These latter systems are more likely to use mainstream 
> technologies for data creation and management, but they do not 
> represent the primary holdings of the library."
> That's all.
> In the Recommendations Chapter, especially paragraph 7.4 "Identify and 
> link" a number of essential actions are put forward, with which I 
> completely agree. However, the large majority of libraries use library 
> systems provided by commercial vendors, as is stated in paragraph 
> 6.1.4 (and I think the same considerations apply to open source 
> library systems), and these systems are not (yet) suitable for adding 
> URIs, explicit links, LD vocabularies. Meaning: most libraries simply 
> can't follow these recommendations.
> Paragraph 7.5.3 "Identify tools that support the creation and use of 
> LLD" focuses on tools for generating URIs, RDF etc. outside existing 
> library systems. Again, most libraries just can't do this.
> I would like to see some more recommendations focusing on "legacy"  
> library systems and vendors. This is what we're trying to do in our 
> IGeLU 2011 session. Also stop seeing these legacy systems and vendors 
> as "barriers to adoption" only. I know at least one vendor/system that 
> is actually working on linked data projects and is planning to add LD 
> publishing utilities to their existing legacy
> system: Adlib -
> Lukas Koster
> Library Systems Coordinator
> Library and Information Systems Department Library of the University 
> of Amsterdam

Karen Coyle
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 14:17:00 UTC