Well, ok, I'll set aside my questions of how this data will get into Hadoop for now. A more fundamental question is who is going to set this up? Vendors? The libraries? -Ross. On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > I disagree. Knowing the name of something, its type(s), and a few other > seemingly mundane clues can be enough to identify a thing in a broader > context. RDF/Linked Data is not merely a variant record format. Patterns > exist in information that extend well beyond records, even if they are only > probabilistic. Don’t underestimate Hadoop.**** > > ** ** > > Jeff**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto: > [log in to unmask] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > [log in to unmask]);>] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer > *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > [log in to unmask]);> > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC**** > > ** ** > > On May 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**** > > > This D2RQ thing is just a red herring. Moving to linked data is not just a > matter of taking our current data and outputting it in a different > serialization. In fact, my fear is that we will do just that if we develop > BIBFRAME as a "new version of MARC." Sure, we can write programs to turn > MARC into triples -- but that won't get us an active place in the linked > data cloud.**** > > ** ** > > +1 - a graph full of literals isn't a tremendous improvement over, say, > marcxml.**** > > ** ** > > -Ross.**** > > ** ** > > > kc > > **** > > On 5/30/13 12:16 PM, Mitchell, Michael wrote:**** > > I must have missed that most libraries don't store their data > in relational databases. I thought most of the big ILS did by now and they > would cover most libraries. That's where MARC goes to rest in our > Sirsi-Dynix system after being rendered apart. Oh well.**** > > I still think a lot of the discussion is directed to discovery > relationships that are pointed the wrong way. Out from the library rather > than in.**** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > Michael Mitchell**** > > Technical Services Librarian**** > > Brazosport College**** > > Lake Jackson, TX**** > > Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu**** > > **** > > *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Young,Jeff (OR) > *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:56 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC**** > > **** > > The point came up earlier that most libraries don’t store their data in > relational databases, so this particular tool won’t help in those cases. > Somebody else argued that most relational database are unmappable into > anything useful, but I find that hard to believe.**** > > **** > > Jeff**** > > **** > >