On 3/14/13 3:43 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:13, Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Our initial linked data analysis identified literally dozens of
>> namespaces used in the Library community reflecting various stages of
>> experimentation. More if you start to broaden analysis to the include
>> museums, archives, galleries, etc.. And even more if you broaden into
>> more of how we might imagine patrons / others adding value to this
>> data. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with RDF /
>> Linked Data. There isn't one vocabulary that works (or will work) for
>> everything. ;)
> I'd absolutely agree with this - which is perhaps why the idea of a 'bibframe' vocabulary worries me. While I absolutely see the point of a framework in which libraries operate to describe resources, approaching the description of resources from a library perspective only worries me more. Even if we are creating new vocabularies (for the reasons already put forward), I wonder if there is an argument for having a more 'small bits' approach to building these than trying to create a single vocabulary to tackle the whole of library description?
First, I want to note that RDA, the cataloging rules that prompted the
idea that we need to move away from MARC to something more akin to
linked data, already has an RDF vocabulary and its own namespace. [1]
This is managed by JSC. So either BIBFRAME will duplicate the well over
1,000 RDA properties, or it must make use of that property set. It isn't
clear why BIBFRAME isn't using the RDA RDF where it applies.
Second, I'm seeing some confusion about what BIBFRAME is. Is it a
framework? Is it a framework + vocabulary? I was under the impression
that BIBFRAME was providing a basic model of "things in the
bibliographic space" within which a variety of vocabularies could be
used. What concerns me about the current direction is the emphasis on
converting MARC records. At least experimentation with RDA would be
looking toward the future rather than the past.
And finally, my suggestion about using a "public facing" form of our
data is not the same as Richard's suggestion of schema.org. While it may
become well-known, schema.org is "yet another monolithic vocabulary." It
is also wrapped around displays in HTML. While it may evolve into
something else, it isn't inherently linked data. We need to be linking
to data in the LOD space ASAP if we want to be "of the web." There are
many possibilities for that, but we aren't taking advantage of them.
kc
[1] http://rdvocab.info
>
> If this was done carefully we may even encourage other communities to take up some of the family of vocabularies used within bibframe which, to be honest, seems unlikely if what we end up with is a big 'library vocabulary'. It might also say to the rest of the community that we ('libraries') understand that this isn't about creating 'one vocab to rule them all' :)
>
> It may be that some of the concerns I have can be mitigated by simply declaring equivalence between bibframe entities and entities described by others using other vocabularies. I also acknowledge Richard's point that 'bibframe' may not be what is typically exposed to the outside world. However I think there is a high risk that at this stage bibframe is seen as being too insular - I'm not sure if there is a solution to this, but I'm concerned we may lose support of those who have already invested time and effort in building vocabularies and describing things that libraries are interested in (both inside and outside the library community) - which I would argue are the very communities we should be seeking to engage.
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|