Re: Linked data and library systems vendors

Hi Lukas,

That matches! Our[1] director, Silke Schomburg, is a co-presenter for 
that session.
If you can put some words to a "wishing list adressed to exLibris" at 
IGeLU (we will do that, and I suppose as more people will do that there 
might be a chance to be heard), that would be that:

1.  many people out there in the linked library data world (i.e. hbz, 
europeana[3]) are desperately in need of an event stream API to get 
catalogued data "in real time" (i.e. via XMPP). That would allow us to 
work with the data in a manner we need: to update our LOD service[4] in time.
At the moment we made the experience that "we have the data, but we 
cannot access them easily" (at least not in a manner that suit us, or 
rather: that is needed!).

2. A further wish would be to have access to meta-metadata (user data, 
data about circulation ... all these administrative data). These are 
important data to enrich our lld services.



Pascal Christoph M.A.
hbz, Gruppe Portale
- semantic web, DigiBib -
hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum NRW
Postfach 270451
50510 Köln
Telefon +49-221-40075-139
Fax +49-221-40075-190

Am 26.07.2011 15:46 schrieb 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:
> 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

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 07:45:30 UTC