Print

Print


Thank you very much for mentioning about LibraryCloud, led by David Weinberger.  I also made comments on his ShelfLite, and Findability Systems through his blog on "Phyical Libraries in Digital World" available from http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2011/11/22/physical-libraries-in-a-digital-world/#comments.  

As far as I am concerned, not only holdings data, but also barcoded item level data should be interchangeable in Findability system.  The key is to have enough resources and metrics representing mission critical operations of the physical libraries to define the perfect shelf for the systems in digital world.  Thanks!


Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:54, "Tillett, Barbara" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> As for getting holdings information on the Web, take a look at the work of LibraryCloud - led by David Weinberger at Harvard. - Barbara Tillett
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 12:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Local library data and the bibliographic framework
> 
> Lukas, I just wanted to reply that I do think your post points out some very important considerations about library data on the web. It may, however, be too far advanced of most of today's thinking to get much discussion. The key question that you address is how we will get library *holdings* data integrated into the semantic web. Without that, masses of bibliographic data in linked data format do not make libraries visible.
> 
> I agree with you that this is actually a more vital question than the transformation of library bibliographic data into RDF. And I agree that what libraries have to offer *uniquely* is the link to their services, not a mass of bibliographic data, much of which will be redundant with data already provided by Amazon, Google, and others.
> 
> I wonder if there wouldn't be more uptake for this idea in communities whose focus is less on bibliographic data and more on the semantic web itself. I'm thinking of the W3C LLD group in particular. It is probably the case that the bibframe activity will be primarily occupied with defining bibliographic data and how that data works within library systems, and may not have time to focus on integrating holdings with existing bibliographic data on the web.
> 
> kc
> 
> Quoting Lukas Koster <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
>> I blogged some thoughts on the position of library data in the global 
>> bibliographic framework based on an extension of FRBR:
>> http://commonplace.net/2012/01/local-library-data-in-the-new-global-fr
>> amework/
>> 
>> I am curious if you think there is something useful there.
>> 
>> Lukas Koster
>> Library Systems Coordinator
>> Library of the University of Amsterdam
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet