As a network primarily comprised of public libraries we have heard the frequent sales pitch that linked data will bring our holdings up on the first page of search results. But what guarantee is there that this would ever actually be the case for the majority of patron searches?This might be the case for a mid-list title or something slightly more unique to a library's holdings that might appeal to researchers, which is useful but perhaps not enough of a return on investment to justify the cost of migrating our data to such a schema at this point in time. But for the bulk of our patron searches, which are generally known author/title searches for popular materials, I have not been able to grasp how a library's holdings will come to outrank, in a search result, the sorts of trending, search optimized, materials available from other parties.For an example, let's say a patron is searching for a copy of the film Zootopia at my library. My holding would fit into Google's search results among IMDB, a slew of movie reviews from various major news sources, and currently the recent Oscar nominee announcements, and that's without even getting into places where the title may be purchased. How does our linked data compete in that environment to appear on page one of the Google results?On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Joy Nelson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:On the flip side, if you view your community as the community at large - other librarians, researches and patrons, the value of Linked Data takes a different focus. As a user I'm not concerned with correct punctuation in marc tags or even the right data in the right tags generally speaking. ILS system usually narrowly focuses on author,title,subject when providing search results. Tags with publication information and series would also be of value in some searches. Many of the other tags are locked into 5XX tags and generally only searchable via keyword search. As a user I would love to have that information more readily accessible and linked to other records - this is something that would benefit researches mainly and may or may not have much practical application to public libraries.Michael,I would argue that it all depends on what you veiw your community as. If you your community consists of fellow catalogers, then you could argue that Linked Data provides you no benefit and no improvement over tried and true standards. Although others could say that the 're-usability' of linked data would be of value to catalogers in streamlining their workflows. I can see why their is resistance to a new cataloging standard from technical services. The control of the information by catalogers is a source of pride for them. Accuracy in the information is a current tenet of the profession. And Linked Data brings an unknown element regarding the control and accuracy of that information.
A public library community at large would benefit from seeing the libraries holdings displayed on the web. If I'm looking for a book, I want to see my library's results on the first page, not buried on subsequent pages of google if it displays at all. It seems this aspect of linked data would directly impact public libraries struggling to show their value in some communities. If the resources are hidden, they are potentially underutilized and possibly underfunded as a result. It may be possible that an implementation of linked data to showcase library resources could be adopted by libraries as a first step into linked data that doesn't require a rethinking of their current marc processes. When (and if) translation tools are available, the marc could be transformed into basic triples, made available to web crawlers and direct traffic to your library.Joy NelsonByWater Solutions--On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Michael Ayres <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
But of what value is this so-called ‘Linked Data community’ for MY community? Does direct connection of my local bibliographic records to the internet really (REALLY) equate with better information retrieval for my community? Why should I follow errant standards that do not bestow any perceivable benefit over my current tried-and-true standards—especially when there is a very high, unaffordable cost involved? These are some of the questions that direct the resistance of so many of us to buying into the ‘snake oil’ of RDA and BIBFRAME.
(Really not trying to stir up this battle once again.)
Just two cents more—other side of the coin,
Michael Ayres | Technical Services Manager
City of Irving l Irving Public Library System
801 W. Irving Blvd., Irving, TX 75060
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of FunnyFace Internet
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Failure
The whole point of RDA and BIBFRAME is moving to Linked Data community for better information retrieval and connectivity on the Internet. During the transitional period, some libraries follow MARC, and some follow BIBFRAME. But eventually we all should follow the same standards - RDA and BIBFRAME. If each library follows different standards as a long term plan, do we lose the original purpose of RDA and BIBFRAME?
BIBFRAME is a very complex thing to develop. It is not just a piece of software, but vocabularies and classes. Cataloging librarians are very meticulous (the most meticulous type of librarians) and hard to please. BiBFRAME has to become perfect through use and continuous effort. It will never work in a vacuum like now. Someone has to start using it. There is no way turning back at this point.
Just two cents.