Print

Print


I'll hold my reply until every librarian on the list has picked themselves
up off the floor from laughing.

-Ross.

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Shlomo Sanders wrote:

>  I agree with Jeff. Your underestimating and not just technology.
> If the target is agreed upon and libraries want to buy it, vendor will
> help ms,e it happen.
>
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
>
>  Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 1:08, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  I guess my point is, I agree that this technically possible. It just
> also seems highly improbable (at scale, anyway).
>
>  -Ross.
>
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Ross Singer wrote:
>
> 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. Donít underestimate Hadoop.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeff****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM
> *To:* [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****
>
>