Print

Print


Time is already telling:

http://bit.ly/lO754b

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shlomo Sanders
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
> 
> Agreed.
> If LOD takes off, then, personally, I believe it will have wide
> applicability and thus be supported by the various products.
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 7:57, "Tennant,Roy" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > I think we need to agree that "what libraries want to buy" is not a
> single thing. What a research library may wish to spend money on is not
> what a small public library can necessarily afford. So the question is
> much more nuanced than what has previously been stated. This then leads
> to the inevitable question of what the entire potential market for a
> given service might be, which changes the question substantially. If
> your potential market is a dozen large libraries any vendor would be
> justified to go elsewhere. However, if the potential market is much
> larger, then perhaps it would make sense to develop a product. Between
> those two points is a very large grey area. At the end of the day it
> isn't entirely clear what services a library can expect a vendor to
> supply, and therein lies the rub.
> > Roy
> >
> > From: Shlomo Sanders
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
> OM>>
> > Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 5/30/13 * 9:42 PM
> > To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
> >
> > Why do you say that?
> > Because the issue is librarian acceptance or just disbelief that
> vendors develop what libraries want to buy?
> >
> > If you want we can take this off-line.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shlomo
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On May 31, 2013, at 7:07, "Ross Singer"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > 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. Don't 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