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  August 2018

BIBFRAME August 2018

Subject:

Re: Some comments on "BIBFRAME Expectations for ILS Tenders"

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:20:47 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Thanks for pointing this out, Lars. I haven't read the report (yet) but
I can take your word on the contents.

The one thing that I always find missing in the discussion of linked
data is: what linking will be done? There isn't much use in moving to
linked data if our systems don't use it for linking. Admittedly, some of
the resources we might like to link to either aren't open or aren't yet
linked data. I would think that one might want to link from courseware
to the library. I would also think that the library might want to link
to Wikipedia via Wikidata, and to Wikicite. I suppose there could be
some interest in linking to geographic databases and other data sets.

I'm sure others have even better ideas. To me, this is the key to making
a change, and making library catalogs more informative.

kc

On 8/22/18 1:55 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> One of the outcomes of the 2017 European BIBFRAME Workshop [1] was a paper called “BIBFRAME Expectations for ILS tenders” containing suggestions for “requirements for Integrated Library Systems (ILS) vendors to fulfil Linked Data model, with particular focus on BIBFRAME conformance“. [2]. Over the past few weeks I have pondered this document a bit and wanted to share my reflections with the community.
>
> First of all: Tiziana and the Organiser Group for the 2018 European BIBFRAME Workshop have made a nice good job putting this together; I found the idea to use the Maturity Model particularly interesting. Thank you!
>
> That said, I do have some issues with the general direction this paper takes. The main one it that I find it too focused on technology and too little on functional requirements. The paper suggests a transition from a paradigm (1) where cataloguing is done directly in MARC records and where the Integrated Library Systems (ILSs) use a relational database (RDBMS) to store this and any associated data to another paradigm (2) where cataloguing is done in RDF (using the BIBFRAME data model) and ILSs use a triple store to store the necessary information. I’d say that the first assumption isn’t necessarily true (there are quite some ILSs where data is not stored using an RDBMS and at least some libraries where cataloguing is not done by creating or editing MARC records but using another metadata format that can be converted to MARC if so desired). And I’d also say that the suggestion for a new system paradigm is far too narrow and might even hinder innovation by mandating too strong requirements on which technology to use. There is, for instance, an emerging technology called graph databases that allow for interesting ways of analysing the data in the graph, including finding the shortest path between two nodes, finding “islands” (graphs or subtrees not connected to any other part of the graph) or loosely connected subtrees (e. g. subtrees that are connected by only one edge). If we mandate the use of a triple store, a vendor would not be able to use this technology and thus would lose the possibility to implement interesting statistical functions. In my opinion, a call for tender should be as technology neutral as possible (at least with regard to system internals).
>
> So what should a call for tender contain instead?
>
> My take is, that it should specify the desired functionality. After all, the interesting thing is what we want the system to do (or at least what we want to do with the system). A non-exhaustive list of things I can think of for a LinkedData-based system would be [3]:
>
> - The system must be able to import library data in the following formats:
> -- MARC 21 (perhaps in different flavours)
> -- RDF using the BIBFRAME data model
> -- RDF using the RDA data model
> -- …
>
> - The system must be able to export data in the following formats:
> -- MARC 21 (perhaps specifying a flavour)
> -- RDF using the BIBFRAME data model
> -- DC-XML (for use with OAI-PMH)
> -- …
>
> - The system must support the following machine import and export interfaces:
> -- SRU/SRW
> -- OAI-PMH (synchronising both ways)
> -- Z39.50 ;-)
> -- W3C WebSub (to ensure the system is “webby”)
> -- …
>
> - The cataloguing module must allow cataloguers to:
> -- Connect titles and authorities to other titles and authorities residing inside the local system (e. g. connecting a publication to its successor or to its author; connecting an author to her/his place of birth and the place of birth to the country it’s part of)
> -- Connect titles and authorities to other titles and authorities residing in online databases (perhaps mandating a list of search interfaces the system must support)
> -- …
>
> - The system must allow administrators to
> -- Configure the data input forms, e. g. restricting which authority files the cataloguers can use
> -- Import and export data input configurations and metadata profiles in a standardised format (possibly stating a list of such formats, e. g. SHACL, ShEx, JSON Schema, XML Schema)
> -- Seamlessly include third party databases (IEEE Xplore, EconBiz, PubMed, …) into end user search
>
> - The system must allow end users to:
> -- Search in both library internal content and third party databases using a single, united search interface
> -- Export bibliographic citations into third party citation management systems
> -- Subscribe to an RSS/Atom feed for new content matching a custom search
> -- …
>
> To me, this approach would have the advantages that
> 1) The customers need to think of what they really want the system to do
> 2) The vendors can concentrate on implementing this functionality in a way they are comfortable instead of having to focus on new technology.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>
> [1] https://wiki.dnb.de/display/EBW/Documents+and+Results
> [2] https://wiki.dnb.de/download/attachments/125433008/BIBFRAME_Expectations_for_ILS_Tenders.pdf
> [3] Some of those and much more can be found in the 2013 list of use cases and requirements: http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases/
>
>
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
>

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

November 2019
October 2019
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