Print

Print


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. Donít 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