 |
 |
Counterpoint: if libraries can do "anything they want" with their data and have had 40+ years to do so, why haven't they done anything new or interesting with it for the past 20? How, with my MARC records alone, do I let people know that they might be interested in "Clueless" if they're looking at "Sense and Sensibility"? How do I find every Raymond Carver short story in the collection? The albums that Levon Helm contributed to? How can I find every introduction by Carl Sagan? What do we have that cites them? How, with my MARC records alone, can I definitively limit only to ebooks? What has been published in the West Midlands? You *could* make a 3-D day-glo print of a MARC record, I suppose - but that seems like exactly the sort of tone deaf navel gazing that has rendered our systems and interfaces more and more irrelevant to our users. -Ross. On Thursday, March 5, 2015, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Forwarded by permission of James Weinheimer: > > > > There are some points to keep in mind when considering linked > data/semantic web. The new formats (schema.org, Bibframe) are *not* > there for libraries to be able to do new and wonderful things with their > own data. Why? Because libraries already understand and control all of > that data. Right now, so long as we have XML formats (and we have that > now with MARCXML) we can do *anything* we want with the data. MARCXML is > not perfect, but it is still XML and that means: librarians can search > that data however we want, manipulate it however we want, transform it > however we want, sort it however we want and display it however we want. > If we want to search by the fiction code in the fixed fields and sort by > number of pages or by 100/700$q we can. We can print out reams of entire > records, or any bits and pieces of them we could want, collate them in > any number of ways (or not), and print them out on 3D printers in > day-glow colors, display them with laser beams on the moon or work with > them in the virtual reality "wearable technology". We can do all of that > and more *right now* if we wanted. We've been able to do it for a long > time. We don't need schema.org or Bibframe to enhance our own > capabilities because we can do anything with our own data now. > > So, who is schema.org and Bibframe for? Non-librarians, i.e. for people > who neither understand nor control our data. Libraries will allow others > to work with our data in ways that they can understand a bit more than > MARC. Non-librarians cannot be expected to understand 240$k or 700$q, > but with schema.org or Bibframe, it is supposed to be easier for > them--although it still won't be easy. Nevertheless, they will be able > to take our data and do with it as they will as they cannot do now with > our MARC/ISO2709 records. > > With Bibframe and schema.org people will be able to merge it with other > parts of the linked data universe (oops! Not Freebase or dbpedia. > They'll have to go to Wikidata! Wonder how long that will last!) or with > all kinds of web APIs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_API) that > can create mashups. (I still think this video gives the best description > of a mashup: What is a mashup? - ZDNet > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcP2CZ8DS8>. Here too is a > list of some of the web apis > http://www.programmableweb.com/apis/directory) Web programmers can then > put these things together to create something absolutely new, e.g. bring > together library data with ebay so that people can see if something on > ebay is available in the library or vice versa. But remember that those > web programmers will also be able to manipulate our data as much as we > can, so the final product they create may look and work completely > differently than we would imagine, or that we would like. As a result, > libraries and catalogers will lose the control of their data that they > have always enjoyed. For better or worse, that is a necessary > consequence of sharing your data. > > Then comes what are--I think--the two major questions of linked data for > libraries. First is: OK. We add the links, but what do we link *to*? > Will linking into id.loc.gov appeal to the public? I personally don't > think so since there is so little there, other than the traditional > syndetic structures found in our traditional catalogs (i.e. the UF, BT, > NT, RT for subjects, the earlier/later names of corporate bodies and > series, the other names of people). This is not what people think of > when they think of the advantages of linked data. While those things may > be nice for us, I don't know if that will be so appealing to the public. > If it is to become appealing to the public, somebody somewhere will have > to do a lot of work to make them appealing. > > Concerning VIAF, it's nice to know the authorized forms in Hebrew, > French, Italian, and so on, but again, is that so appealing to the > *public*? It may be, but that remains to be proven. > > Second, there is no guarantee at all that anyone will actually do > anything with our data. While I certainly hope so, there are no > guarantees that anybody will do anything with our data. It could just > sit and go unused. > > It's interesting to note that the LC book > catalog in this format has been in the Internet Archive for awhile now > (https://archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net) but I haven't > heard that any developers have used it. > > I want again to emphasize that libraries should go into linked data, but > when we do so, there will probably be more question marks than > exclamation points. Just as when a couple is expecting a baby and they > experience pregnancy: at least when I experienced it, I imagined that > the birth of my son would be an end of the pregnancy. But suddenly, I > had a crying baby on my hands! Linked data will be similar: it will be a > beginning and not an end. > > James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] <javascript:;> First Thus > http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page > https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules > opencatalogingrules <http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/> > Cataloging Matters > Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay > +30 days] > > -- > > -- > James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] <javascript:;> First Thus > http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page > https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules > opencatalogingrules <http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/> > Cataloging Matters > Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay > +30 days] >