On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:04 AM, Ross wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're asking here.  You mentioned that we can point an
> author or publisher to VIAF or DBPedia, but why didn't you mention that we
> could link the work?  Or the edition?
> And then if that link to the work is linked to dbpedia, and dbpedia links to
> another dataset that links the works that were inspired or adapted from the
> original work, or lists the places where the action takes place in the original
> work, or citations to/from this work, or any countless numbers of possibly
> useful or useless or somewhere in between links between data.
> You're right that we likely won't get access to the fulltext although I'm not
> convinced that would be terribly useful, anyway.  But we are quite likely to be
> able to have access and contribute to a lot more metadata to find the
> relationships *between* resources, which, in turn, opens up discovery.

I think this captures one very important point: Linked Data is not about RDF, it's about the links, i. e. making explicit how entities are related to one another (or not related, as in owl:differentFrom). Theoretically, it's possible to do this in MARC, at least to a certain extent, cf. all the linking done in 5XX $0 in the GND record about Hermann Hesse [1] (the link relation is in $9, a leading "4:" says it's a relation, the four-letter code is the relation type).

However, it's tricky to link to anything not having a library identifier and it's hard for people to link to and draw inferences from this information. This is where RDF enters the equation, as a non-library data format that others can use for linking to our data and then draw conclusions from it.

RDF alone cannot solve all library problems, but it's good as a lingua franca if we want to interact with organisations outside of the library ecosystem. I guess there will be a business model for companies creating linked MARC from linked RDF (not all RDF is linked...).

For title data, the question seems to be how far you are prepared to disintegrate the bibliographic description. FRBR uses three parts (WEM), BIBFRAME two (Work + Instance), "traditional" cataloguing one. Data creation and reuse (and thus interoperability) depends on what model you use for your data. MARC and RDF are not data models but only containers.

So what we need to do is to figure out how far we want to split our data apart and how to link it back together again, possibly also linking to other datasets. The central concept is the link. In future, much metadata work will be to create those links.




> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:44 PM Charles Pennell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If the base descriptive data lacks sufficient elements to link out to other data
> sources, how does RDF enhance it?  Sure, you might have an author or
> publisher to link out to VIAF or DBPedia, or a single subject heading to link to
>, but how is that going to provide you with more information on the
> contents of the actual resource being described?  Short of linking to full-text,
> which is not going to happen for anything published after 1928 (except for
> purchased content, in the case of more recent materials), what will linked data
> provide us with to work with our existing print resources?  I'm not arguing that
> MARC is inherently superior or inferior to Bibframe, only that in either case we
> are subject to the same limitations in accessing the contents of our resources.
>    Charley
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> It doesn't have to be there if it links to other things.
> The problem is with MARC is that that record (and each copy of it in each
> place) would need to be updated with every enhancement.  How would the
> records incrementally improve?
> With BIBFRAME and RDF, the data *doesn't* have to be there.  That's the
> whole point of it.  But by identifying it and the resources in it, we can make
> inferences from other data.  And since this is the design from the start, it's not
> shoehorning onto a data format that isn't particularly well suited for it.
> -Ross.
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:55 PM Charles Pennell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Of course you do realize that if the data isn't there in our MARC records, it
> surely isn't going to be in our Bibframe/rdf records either. Providing buckets
> for data isn't the same as filling them, and the money will never be there for
> retroactively bringing historic records up to standards.  Really, it is no longer
> there for bringing our current records up to standard either, as can be
> witnessed in the proliferation of vendor-supplied brief and substandard records
> we are all ingesting to manage our e-resources.
>   Charley
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> Robin,
> I am happy to be corrected, but I would need to see some examples, in MARC,
> that satisfy the scenarios I laid forth.
> I deal with lots and lots of MARC data and none of it can answer those kinds of
> questions, and, worse, a lot of it isn't even possible to link to other data where I
> could answer those questions.
> Remember, when we talk about MARC data, we can't just talk about what's
> *possible* in MARC21, but what actually is in the records we have: since each
> record is a discrete standalone document, if the data isn't there, it's nearly
> impossible to improve upon that.
> Or, basically, what Karen just said.
> -Ross.
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:04 PM Wendler, Robin King
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My reaction was the same as Cecilia’s.  MARC can carry that information.
> There has been a vicious circle, though, because without systems building
> functionality to use the metadata, libraries have been unlikely to invest in
> creating it. It’s been increasingly difficult to justify this level of detail in
> cataloging to administrators. We can lay plenty of sins at MARC’s door, but not
> these particular ones.
> Robin
> Robin Wendler
> Library Technology Services
> Harvard University
> 90 Mt. Auburn St.
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> 617-495-3724
> [log in to unmask]
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cecilia M. Preston
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Linked data
> Ross,
> My first reaction to many of these questions about what MARC has not or could
> not do, has been talk to your ILS vendor.  Much of the data embedded in a
> MARC record was never indexed by the ILS folks because ‘no one was
> interested in it’ or what was generally referred to in the ancient days of Z39.50
> ATS (Author, Title, Subject) was all the patron/user/client is interested
> in.  When I asked the vendor for my local system at ALA why I could not get
> access to some information I knew was in a MARC record the answer was
> simply ‘we can index that if they want to $$$ for it’  Not something I think many
> institutions have the funding to do for me.
> -Cecilia
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 (, 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$q we can. We can print out reams of entire
>   records, or any bits and pieces of them we could want, collate them in
>   any number of ways (or not), and print them out on 3D printers in
>   day-glow colors, display them with laser beams on the moon or work with
>   them in the virtual reality "wearable technology". We can do all of that
>   and more *right now* if we wanted. We've been able to do it for a long
>   time. We don't need or Bibframe to enhance our own
>   capabilities because we can do anything with our own data now.
>   So, who is and Bibframe for? Non-librarians, i.e. for people
>   who neither understand nor control our data. Libraries will allow others
>   to work with our data in ways that they can understand a bit more than
>   MARC. Non-librarians cannot be expected to understand 240$k or 700$q,
>   but with 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 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 that
>   can create mashups. (I still think this video gives the best description
>   of a mashup: What is a mashup? - ZDNet. 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. 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 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
>   ( 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] First Thus
> First Thus Facebook Page
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
>   opencatalogingrules Cataloging Matters
>   Podcasts [delay
>   +30 days]
>   --
> --
> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus
> First Thus Facebook Page
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> opencatalogingrules Cataloging Matters
> Podcasts [delay
> +30 days]
> --
> Charley Pennell
> Principal Cataloger
> NCSU Libraries
> North Carolina State University
> --
> Charley Pennell
> Principal Cataloger
> NCSU Libraries
> North Carolina State University