Another place we see Google using their Linked Data is in their Knowledge Graph Search API:
Search results link to a full page description as opposed to the "card" they present in their regular search results. For example:
They don't provide access to their underlying graph, but this makes it easier to imagine the possibilities.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] creating/writing bibframe data
> On 2/24/2016 4:54 PM, Joy Nelson wrote:
> > When I look at Bibframe and linked data in general, I believe there
> > will be various uses for it. In a public library setting, there may
> > not be a huge need for linking to external sources (like youtube,
> > etc). However, linking the data we already have to one another would
> > be very useful. As a public library user I am frustrated with the
> > limitations of the catalog just as you mentioned James. And the
> > inflexibility of MARC is what I see as a major obstacle to improving
> > the catalog experience. With linked data the catalog becomes
> > FRBRized. This I believe is more in line with what patrons want - a
> > list of the items organized in a way that doesn't involve jumping from
> > one bibliographic record to another.
> > For academic (and some special public libraries with special
> > collections) the benefits are much greater in the area of research.
> > Instead of helping a patron find just one item that's cataloged, we
> > help them find a broader breadth of materials across collections that
> > will assist them in their research endeavors. Instead of searching
> > silo after silo after silo...we search once and find the many.
> > The reason we all love Google so much is that they are using linked
> > data! And if you use it and love it (and i do too) then it's not a
> > far stretch to think about how much better a library ILS can be using
> > those same concepts.
> > It's an incredibly hard thing to do, but I think we need to resist the
> > urge to get up and personal with the trees right now. As we move
> > towards a world of linked data the specifics of workflow will
> > inevitably work themselves out....they always do in every system.
> > There will be plenty of resistance as well, there always is. The
> > hardest part of any transition is generally the people themselves.
> > :-D
> Well, I am a heretic. I am not nearly so enamored of FRBR as is the rest of the
> library community. I have done quite a bit of reference work, and I have found
> very few times when the public wants or needs to navigate
> works/expressions/manifestations/items. 99% of the time, people simply want
> a copy of Huck Finn or the Divine Comedy, and they don't care which
> expression/manifestation it is, so long as it is in the language they want. The
> public has other, far more serious problems with our catalogs, but this is not
> the forum for that discussion.
> Also, while Google does use linked data, it is not in their search results. Where
> we see it is in their "knowledge graphs". So, if I do a search for "Albrecht
> (https://www.google.com/search?q=albrecht+durer) in the right-hand column, I
> see a "card" (their word for it!) that is Durer's "Google Knowledge Graph". It
> has a few of his paintings and engravings, basic info stolen from Wikipedia,
> some quotes, more artwork, and finally, I discover that people also searched
> for "Raphael, Jan van Eyck, Leonardo da Vinci, Titian and Michelangelo". In
> their advertising, Google of course says that this is *absolutely amazing!!!!*
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmQl6VGvX-c) but we shouldn't believe a
> promo. Is this really so amazing? In fact, I find it practically useless. The
> information we see in the Google knowledge graphs may be useful to a 5 or 6
> year old, but to few other people.
> Another place we see Google use linked data is with email. When someone
> books a hotel room or has a flight, the company can markup the email they
> send that will interoperate with Google to provide people with extra
> information. (See
> The reason Google search works so much better for me than Bing or Yahoo, is
> not because it uses linked data because it doesn't. It works better because
> (fortunately or unfortunately) it has a huge database of my own browsing
> habits going back years, and Google's super-secret algorithms work on that
> trove of my personal browsing history. For this convenience, I gave up my
> privacy. I don't know if I like it but there it is....
> In any case, linked data does not allow *you* to work with *your own
> data* in any ways you couldn't already. After all, you have complete control
> over your own data and can convert it, search it, manipulate it, or display it in
> any ways you could possibly want right now, and you already understand all of
> its semantics. Linked data allows *others* to use your data--people who do not
> understand the structures of your own data--and then they can manipulate your
> data in ways they want. In that way, they can create things that you might
> never dream of.
> Of course, that is linked *open* data. Linked *closed* data (or proprietary
> linked data) is another matter entirely.
> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
> Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
> Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-
> The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/
> [delay +30 days]