 |
 |
Or in Norway, it's just a way of life and no problem at all. It all depends on institutional / national priorities. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/norway-digitizing-all-books-national-library_n_4427164.html Rob On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Ford <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I don't know who would do the imaging. It's cataloging workflow, so > perhaps it is done by a technician when the item is received. Perhaps by a > cataloger with a hand-held scanner. Perhaps publishers provide the images. > > None of that addresses the lack of images for existing books, but that's > just a technicality, right? > > Yours, > Kevin > > > > On 08/01/2014 05:13 PM, Bowers, Kate A. wrote: > >> Who will do all this scanning of the resource? >> >> >> >> Kate Bowers >> Collections Services Archivist >> [log in to unmask] >> 617.496.2713 >> voice: (617) 384-7787 >> fax: (617) 495-8011 >> web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives >> Twitter: @k8_bowers >> ____________________________________________________________ >> _________________________ >> Harvard Library | Harvard University Archives | Pusey Library—Harvard >> Yard, Cambridge, MA 02138 archives.harvard.edu >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin >> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 2:46 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [Radical] Transcribed and Controlled Data >> >> 2) Working on the Web, it's likely that many of the uses of >>> transcription will be better supported by other forms of >>> representation, like digital reproductions of a resource (e.g. scanned >>> images) or even complete access to a (digital) resource. >>> >> -- I could be completely sold on this idea. I doubt it will happen, but >> I could be sold on it. The potential is incredible, the logic is >> undeniable, and the concept in some ways already exists. >> >> When it comes to the pre-existing concept, we talked about CoverArt >> images/annotations pointing to Instances, so why not title pages and their >> versos? When it comes to the logic, this would seem to address many of >> RDA's interests with respect to matching the "record" to the thing and it >> would make the "record" about data. When it comes to the potential, I can >> now imagine a cataloging scenario that begins with the scanning of these >> important pages, which are then OCR-ed followed by some smart entity >> recognition that is then used to pre-populate the "record." >> >> I like it. I like it a lot. >> >> Yours, >> Kevin >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 12:30 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] [Radical] Transcribed and Controlled Data >>> >>> This is very wise. I'll add two cents of my own: >>> >>> 1) Many (not all, but many) of the uses of controlled data in systems >>> like RDA will be (better) supported by the use of identifiers in Linked >>> Data. >>> >>> 2) Working on the Web, it's likely that many of the uses of >>> transcription will be better supported by other forms of >>> representation, like digital reproductions of a resource (e.g. scanned >>> images) or even complete access to a (digital) resource. >>> >>> We ought, I think, to take these factors into account when deciding >>> how to invest time and effort into supporting these two forms of >>> description. >>> >>> --- >>> A. Soroka >>> The University of Virginia Library >>> >>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> In my experience, RDF and Linked Data can do both presentation based >>>> >>> information (eg here is content to present directly to the user, >>> without semantics eg [1]) and it can do semantic, descriptive >>> information (here is a rich description of the resource, say a book or >>> annotation eg [2]) but both at once is very challenging without simply >>> repeating everything in a for- machines way and a for-humans way as >>> per the current titleStatement, providerStatement, and one assumes >>> authorStatement, subjectStatement, etc. >>> >>>> >>>> Here are two radical ideas, for which the boat has probably long >>>> since sailed, >>>> >>> but I'll throw them out there regardless. >>> >>>> >>>> 1. Don't try to mix them up. Have two completely separate >>>> descriptions, >>>> >>> where one is intended for humans to read, and the other is intended >>> for machines to reason upon and search. A machine will only ever >>> throw a transcribed string through to the user, so make it easy for >>> them to do that by separating the non-semantic information from the >>> semantic information, with links between them. >>> >>>> >>>> 2. Mix them up using the appropriate technology: HTML + RDFA. >>>> Instead >>>> >>> of thinking about triples for everything, instead create the HTML that >>> you want the user to see. Then annotate that HTML with RDFA >>> properties to add the semantics into the record (and really a record >>> now, not a graph). This way there's only one record to maintain that >>> has both, but uses presentation technology for presenting things to >>> users, and semantic technology for enabling machines to understand the >>> information. >>> >>>> >>>> Basically -- use the right tools for the job. RDF has a hard time >>>> representing >>>> >>> transcriptions outside of non-semantic strings because it was never >>> intended to do that. Order in RDF is a complete pain, because a graph >>> is inherently unordered, but there are very real use cases that >>> require order. On the other hand, RDF is fantastic for controlled >>> data as that is precisely its intended usage. We should make the most >>> appropriate use of the tools that we have available to us, rather than >>> treating everything as a nail. >>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> [1]. The IIIF Presentation API is focused on this approach of >>>> giving >>>> >>> information intended for a client to display, while still being useful >>> linked data by referencing existing semantic descriptions and >>> following REST and JSON- LD. http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2.0/ >>> >>>> [2]. The Open Annotation work is a rich data model that provides >>>> >>> semantics for web annotation, but says almost nothing about presentation. >>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/ >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rob Sanderson >>>> Technology Collaboration Facilitator Digital Library Systems and >>>> Services Stanford, CA 94305 >>>> >>> -- Rob Sanderson Technology Collaboration Facilitator Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305