LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2012

BIBFRAME January 2012

Subject:

Re: The German National Library's response

From:

Amanda Xu <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:33:31 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

It sounds like a great plan.  It definitely offered some insight on what to expect initially in the version of unified bibliographic framework in web-scale management that you've proposed.

One of my concerns, which is also an urgent issue based on my observations at ALA Midwinter 2012, is how to justify ROIs for internal cataloging record maintenance and storage.

Many of us working in the field for years understand the importance to separate the concerns:

1) indexing, search and retrieval;
2) maintenance and storage; and
3) data interchange and resource sharing;

Yet many of us are also being challenged to tie everything we do in metadata services with the mission of the institution that we serve, e.g. user-centered teaching, learning, and research services for academic institutions.

I'm just playing the devil's advocates here.  How can we convince the library admin and leadership of the institution that extra work that we've contributed to ensure metadata standardization for data interchange and resource sharing across the boundaries of institutions, regions, and nations are absolutely essential to the mission of an academic institution?

Having been an active participant in CONSER Core and DC, I understand the extra mile that we had to take if we were going to make authority and bibliographic records sharable in LC and OCLC WorldCat.  

In addition, one of the benefit assumptions that we can make today is that record hierarchical linking and display is going to be performed by automated means (e.g. best practice in cool URI design, linked data rating and validation schemes, pattern recognitions, and intelligent text analysis of bibs and authority) with some human revision.  This might be time-saving effort for us all.

However, such assumption can't be established and realized unless we implement data quality control and knowledgebase for data profiling, integrating, cleansing and refinement, etc. at universal bibliographic control level in distributed and collaborative fashion, similar to the governance, editorial and publishing structure of wikipedia, which often take more resource, high-level expertise, new tool development and time than before as far as I understand.

I see this as top-down, bottom-up, and dynamic approaches for data quality control.  Within the technical constraints of owl:the same as and union join of SPARQL query, and economic constraint of ROIs, how can we 1) justify the cost and demonstrate ROIs and impact factors; 2) share best practice in working around the limits of technologies and standards; 3) empower existing workforce in bibliographic control; and 4) work together globally as library and museum communities towards the common goal, that is to transition toward the support of universal Bibliographic framework in a much more robust fashion than before, particularly in the areas of version and quality control, maintainability, etc.?

If national libraries can take the lead in preparing training and justification of ROIs for local, national, and universal practice for Bibliographic control, that would be helpful in building up the momentum in RDA implementation that I've seen at ALA Midwinter 2012 in Dallas, TX.  

Thank you so much for sharing your proposal.  The digital inclusive community definitely started with this group as far as I know.  

Sincerely yours,

Amanda Xu


Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:26, "Heuvelmann, Reinhold" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> as a response to the "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative" General Plan announced by the Library of Congress in October 2011, the German National Library has already expressed its appreciation, and the will to support the initiative and to actively take part in the process.
> 
> During a meeting in December, we decided to set up a paper and to outline some aspects of the framework that we may specifically be able to contribute to.  After positive reactions by experts from the Library of Congress, we would like to make these thoughts and intentions available to the broader community.
> 
> The paper (PDF, 2 pages, 226 KB in size) is available at
> 
> http://files.d-nb.de/pdf/bfti_statement_dnb.pdf 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Reinhold Heuvelmann
> 
> -- 
> 
> Reinhold Heuvelmann
> German National Library
> IT / Office for Data Formats
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
> Telephone: +49-69-1525-1709
> Telefax:   +49-69-1525-1799
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.dnb.de

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager