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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  February 2012

BIBFRAME February 2012

Subject:

Re: The German National Library's response

From:

"Huwig,Steve" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:50:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The German National Library's response
> > Effectively a URI is just another code or number, with the advantage
> > that the format and handling of the code has already been specified
> and
> > is in wide use. It should be noted that technically a URI is not
> > necessarily a URL.
> >
> > ...
>
> So runs the theory, well-known in our trade by now. What's missing is
> only the large-scale proof of concept. Until that comes along, there's
> room for doubt, esp. because what's needed is a implementation on a
> /very/ large scale with many very different players scattered around
> the globe. In theory, ok, those new ideas sound great.
>
> B.Eversberg

We have a large-scale proof of concept.

Google indexes the web. It associates metadata with identifiers. It
doesn't even need the input of the operators of the millions (billions?)
of machines that it crawls. When someone uses Google, it returns the
identifier for the item and allows a user to dereference that identifier
if they so choose. In this analogy the Google search results page is the
bibliographic record exchange format, and the other links are whatever
metadata definitions or item representations that aren't included in the
bibliographic record.

All of the questions about what these identifiers look like, or who
should maintain them, or how they should be maintained, are policy
questions and are not necessarily relevant to the bibliographic record
exchange mechanism. They're important questions, but they don't affect
the basic question of how the framework should use the existing URI
standards and the Internet domain name system to resolve controlled
vocabularies, sets of cataloging rules, and whatever other information
that isn't directly included in the record.

The beauty of using resolvable URIs is that it allows even dumb crawlers
like Google to infer some relationships among these resources, making
bibliographic data much more accessible to the world at large.

Thanks,
Steven Huwig

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options