Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

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. 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.