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  March 2015

BIBFRAME March 2015

Subject:

Re: Linked data

From:

James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:55:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

I was surprised by the responses I received from the initial posting in 
this thread on this list, so I drew back, reconsidered, and talked some 
things over with some experts. It turns out that in my initial post, I 
said nothing wrong: all I did was lay out some facts. I did later make 
an error about Lucene and ISO2709, but that doesn't change the point I 
was trying to make and in fact, it makes formats even less important. 
Still, I appreciate this being pointed out because I am always learning.

That initial post about Bibframe and linked data was aimed at 
catalogers. Many catalogers have gone through huge changes in almost 
every way, practically all negative, over the last 15 or 20 years. Over 
and over, catalogers have read and been told that the "textual strings" 
they create are obsolete, along with their format. So, after everything 
they have gone through, there finally seems to be some hope: many 
catalogers now expect marvelous and wonderful advances from Bibframe. 
Such an expectation should not be so strange--it makes sense that if the 
obsolete format changes, then one of the major problems should be 
solved--and many hope that once the format is changed, libraries can 
then begin to create some wonderful things, based on better formats and 
of course, linked data.

My post (originally in Autocat) was to point out that these expectations 
are unrealistic. A developer who understands library data and MARCXML 
(and there are many of them) can do anything they want with those 
records now. RDF/Bibframe offers nothing that they couldn't have done 
before. RDF/Bibframe is primarily for the non-library community, who do 
not want to delve into the MARCXML structures and--it is said--will be 
able to work with our data much more easily than the ways we offer today.

So, if libraries want to create something with their own data, they have 
already been able to do it for a long time. We can all see and use other 
websites created from bibliographic data that is worse than ours. 
RDF/Bibframe will not allow libraries any capabilities in addition to 
what they have already had for a long, long time, so people should not 
expect lots of new, wonderful changes just because of Bibframe.

Then I mentioned that if the underlying purpose is linked data, what is 
needed is not so much the formats, but the links. We have been able to 
add links for a long time, but it is really unclear what to link to. 
Links into id.loc.gov which contains the UF, BT, RT, NT, Notes and 
different cross-references for various types of names is not what gets 
people excited when they imagine linked data. VIAF also doesn't seem to 
fit the bill. This is no criticism of those two projects, just a simple 
observation. So, to make either of those tools more useful for the 
public will demand a lot of thinking (I hope this will include at least 
some amount of market research among the public) along with a lot of 
development. That translates into lots more time and lots more money.

Finally, you can be "all dressed up but there's nowhere to go." In other 
words, there can be beautiful RDF; it can be on the web and available in 
ways incredibly easy to search and use, but there is no guarantee that 
anybody will want it.

In a later post I mentioned that data is not all equal: that 
bibliographic information should be seen as directional information, 
similar to traffic signs that lead people to the real information 
(content) they want. This goes almost without saying among catalogers 
since they work intimately with the real data that is contained in the 
books, serials, scores, and so on. I ventured that tools that may work 
rather well on content probably do not work so well on the directional 
information catalogers make and therefore, it is important to 
distinguish and understand the differences. I personally believe that 
both types of information are important, but I know that others have 
different opinions.

These observations are simple statements of fact, it seems to me. People 
can make their own inferences from these facts of course, but I want to 
emphasize once again that I am for the RDF and linked data projects, 
although the main problem remains, that is, of making something that the 
public wants.

James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

[delay +30 days]

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

September 2019
August 2019
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