And yet this is exactly what we found in our research of linked data at cultural institutions,
including at national libraries. The institutions will often simply offer the data dump, and
occasionally a SPARQL interface, with the expectation that users will know what to do with it
and develop ways to display and use it. There were some institutions that were doing
interesting things with their data like EUscreen. I did another unpublished study of academic
repositories when I was interning at Columbia, but many just offered a link to the RDF or triples
for records. A few that went a step further had one-off exhibition sites or projects that ultimately
appeared to be abandoned. That said, it seems to be an interesting, untapped opportunity for
digital humanities specialists.
Edelstein, J., Li-Madeo, C., Marden, J., Whysel, N. (2013). “Linked Open Data for Cultural
Heritage: evolution of an information technology.” In Proceedings of the 31st ACM international
conference on design of communication. Greenville, N.C.: Association for Machine Computing.
Edelstein, J., Galla, L, Li-Madeo, C., Marden, J. Rhonemus, A., Whysel, N. (2013). “Linked
Open Data for Cultural Heritage.” New York, NY: Pratt Institute.
Abstract: This paper and the paper submitted to the ACM SIGDOC ’13 conference surveys the
landscape of linked open data projects in cultural heritage, examining the work of groups from
around the world. Traditionally, linked open data has been ranked using the five star method
proposed by Tim Berners-Lee. We found this ranking to be lacking when evaluating how
cultural heritage groups not merely develop linked open datasets, but find ways to use linked
data to augment user experience. Building on the five-star method, we developed a six-stage
life cycle describing both dataset development and dataset usage. We use this framework to
describe and evaluate fifteen linked open data projects in the realm of cultural heritage.
Slides from ACM presentation