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?
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. 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]')">[log in to unmask] First Thus
 http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
 https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
 opencatalogingrules Cataloging Matters
 Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
 +30 days]
 --
--
James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]')">[log in to unmask] First Thus
http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
opencatalogingrules Cataloging Matters
Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
+30 days]