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: 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] First Thus
http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
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] First Thus
http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters
Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
+30 days]