Review of the "Available Vocabularies and Datasets" section

Hi,

first of all, I really like this section - good work guys! 
I only have three little comments which maybe could improve the
understanding. 
 
After the announcement of the RDA implementation decision in the US I
would appreciate to highlight the RDA element sets as an example for
metadata element sets.

 I am not really good with listing GeoNames as value vocabulary.
GeoNames is an pretty complex dataset - just see the offer of premium
data access. In the report we say value vocabularies focus: "on the
management of discrete value/label literals for use in metadata
records". This conflicts with my understanding of the GeoName approach
and maybe confuse readers.

Regarding metadata element sets for libraries I am missing one or two
sentences which recommend a coordinated use of element sets at least in
the community - without naming particular element sets. Out of my point
of view it's difficult to establish union catalogs like VIAF if every
institution forges own new element sets. VIAF is this successful because
all institutions provide for the match & merge processes similar
datasets (currently in MARC 21). I reckon in middle- and long-term
library committees should give recommendations for the re-use of
established linked data element sets for particular entity descriptions.
I'm in fear that we otherwise remove again from interoperability and
internationalization approaches. You touch this subject already in the
"Linking" section, maybe we should more emphasize this issue in here.

Best, alex

-- 
Alexander Haffner 
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek 
Informationstechnik 
Adickesallee 1 
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main 
Telefon: +49-69-1525-1766 
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799 
mailto:a.haffner@dnb.de 
http://www.dnb.de

Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 08:43:45 UTC