[This thread has headed in a different direction than when I started this 
email earlier today. Clearly, I’m sending it anyway.]

+1 for embracing a more open world approach and minimizing the us and them 

If our cataloging wants to keep up with the current rate of scholarly 
communication, never mind cultural heritage resources, we need to more 
easily pull in external data. I’m not trying to be an alarmist; I’m 
excited — there’s a lot of really good data already on the web (just as 
good as the library community is able to produce). Equally important, we 
can more easily contribute useful data back to these/our communities.

As part of Linked Data for Libraries, a Mellon Funded Grant between 
(Cornell, Stanford, and Harvard), we have been trying to demonstrate the 
value of linked data within the library domain through discrete use cases 
(check them out at I’d like to draw particular attention to Use 
Case 2 and Use Case 4 as demonstrations of how we can benefit 
from/contribute to an open world assumption.

- In a demonstration of Use Case 2 we have prototyped linking between 
BIBFRAME for theses to external person data stored in VIVO, a faculty 
profiling system. The benefit here is that we can use rich data from VIVO 
to give context about the department and research network that influenced 
the creation of the theses. Conversely, the BIBFRAME data can help 
complete a faculty member’s teaching activities within VIVO profile. This 
model could very easily be translated to any other content type and any 
other RDF data source for persons. Here’s a presentation for more details,

	- In a demonstration Use Case 4 we are attempting to describe Hip Hip 
Flyers from our Rare and Manuscripts collection using BIBFRAME and 
connecting to LinkedBrainz (the RDF source for Here is a 
case where we can take advantage of the music community’s knowledge of 
performers and related entities, so that we not only don’t have to create 
LCNAF’s for some of the artists… we can discover more relationships to 
other RDF resources, e.g. LinkedBrainz makes use of dbpedia URIs. Another 
important point to make is that we’re also using the Music Ontology for 
the performers so that others modeling similar resources on the web can 
use our data more easily. Here’s a presentation for more details,

Changing directions a little bit... I want to point out that in linked 
data classes and properties themselves have URI’s that resolve to 
descriptions to how they are used. Linked data is self describing in a way 
that MARC (especially fixed fields will never be). Even though it’s 
important to build communities, it’s not sustainable to make someone get 
in touch with us every time there is a question about our data model.

Steven Folsom

Discovery Metadata Librarian
Cornell University Library

On 3/6/15, 5:34 AM, "Meehan, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If anything, I think Bibframe itself represents too much reluctance to 
>lose control. I would love for us to share our data with others and take 
>advantage of the same willingness of others to share their data (and 
>models and ways of thinking). I don't see that as a threat. I would also 
>like to see an end to the them-and-us situation of librarians/cataloguers 
>vs non-librarians/non-cataloguers that James seems to hint at. There is 
>already enough bibliographic data not using AARC/RDA/MARC: I see linked 
>data (and certainly not just Bibframe/ as a wonderful 
>opportunity to join up cataloguing data with other library and 
>non-library data. As a former user of UKMARC and AACR2 (not to mention 
>VHS, Webcrawler and Spectrum BASIC), I hope I am not too frightened by 
>the idea that things might change and even disappear. Getting used to a 
>less monolithic and constantly changing system will be more healthy in 
>the long run.
>Yes, there are lots of things you can do with MARC, but it's also an 
>utter pain to do lots of things with too. I've found linked data, in my 
>limited ability to play with code, a very exciting idea to work with, 
>especially in its assumptions of openness and grounding in the web.
>Thomas Meehan
>Head of Current Cataloguing
>Library Services
>University College London
>Gower Street
>London WC1E 6BT
>[log in to unmask]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
>> Sent: 05 March 2015 17:23
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [BIBFRAME] Linked data
>> Forwarded by permission of James Weinheimer:
>>   There are some points to keep in mind when considering linked
>>   data/semantic web. The new formats (, Bibframe) are *not*
>>   there for libraries to be able to do new and wonderful things with 
>>   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.
>>   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 
>>   If we want to search by the fiction code in the fixed fields and sort 
>>   number of pages or by 100/700$q we can. We can print out reams of 
>>   records, or any bits and pieces of them we could want, collate them in
>>   any number of ways (or not), and print them out on 3D printers in
>>   day-glow colors, display them with laser beams on the moon or work 
>>   them in the virtual reality "wearable technology". We can do all of 
>>   and more *right now* if we wanted. We've been able to do it for a long
>>   time. We don't need or Bibframe to enhance our own
>>   capabilities because we can do anything with our own data now.
>>   So, who is and Bibframe for? Non-librarians, i.e. for 
>>   who neither understand nor control our data. Libraries will allow 
>>   to work with our data in ways that they can understand a bit more than
>>   MARC. Non-librarians cannot be expected to understand 240$k or 700$q,
>>   but with 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 
>>   our MARC/ISO2709 records.
>>   With Bibframe and people will be able to merge it with 
>>   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 
>>   all kinds of web APIs (see that
>>   can create mashups. (I still think this video gives the best 
>>   of a mashup: Here too is
>> a
>>   list of some of the web apis
>> Web programmers can
>> then
>>   put these things together to create something absolutely new, e.g. 
>>   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 
>>   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 
>>   libraries. First is: OK. We add the links, but what do we link *to*?
>>   Will linking into 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, 
>>   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 
>>   be nice for us, I don't know if that will be so appealing to the 
>>   If it is to become appealing to the public, somebody somewhere will 
>>   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
>>   ( but I haven't
>>   heard that any developers have used it.
>>   I want again to emphasize that libraries should go into linked data, 
>>   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] First Thus
>> First Thus Facebook Page
>> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
>> Cataloging Matters
>>   Podcasts 
>>   +30 days]
>>   --
>> --
>> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus
>> First Thus Facebook Page
>> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
>> Cataloging Matters
>> Podcasts [delay
>> +30 days]