 |
 |
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer > *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM > 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. > 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. > Probalistic matching using text strings (ie literals) can be done using MARC too, but I agree with those who say an RDF graph of literals is no better than a MARC/XML file full of literals. The power comes from having strong identifiers which, in the case of RDF, means URIs. It's more work, but offers infinitely more value. Tom