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.


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.