Print

Print


Stephen and Ryan,

Understood, and I agree (to a point): “linked data is uniquely poised to 
offer added value” (Ryan) and “a knowledge/info card is an attempt to 
enrich the end goal (understanding) not intermediary goal (finding)” 
(Stephen).

What I question is whether:

1) Libraries have not already been displaced in this niche by other 
information entities (e.g. Wikipedia, Google).

2) BIBFRAME effectively and realistically addresses these aspirational 
goals.

There is a difference between metadata and the resources they describe. 
If a user gains context and understanding based on freely available 
metadata and linkages between metadata, great. But if the user 
serendipitously finds something via Linked Open Data that s/he wants to 
actually view/use/download, the system fails, because much of the 
content is behind firewalls (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, etc. etc. do not 
give their content away for free). In other words, Linked Open Data will 
be pointing to lots of Closed Resources. LOD is naively utopic in this 
regard.

But for the sake of argument let’s imagine that every library worldwide 
has implemented (to a greater or lesser degree) the principles of Linked 
Open Data and shared (to a greater or lesser degree) its metadata in 
some fairly standardized way using more-or-less agreed upon vocabularies 
and schemas. I would argue that in an online world in which everything 
is linked to everything else, NOTHING is contextualized. Everything has 
been effectively robbed of context. Cf. the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Thanks,

Jeff



On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:24:00 -0500, Ryan E. Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Yes, and I think a crucial part in case 2 that is missing is, 
especially 
>when doing research, a user wants to find information they didn't know 
>they wanted (or where to look). That means, they don't know which 
>specific journal they need to look in... they don't know the specific 
>database or web site... they would like to query from much more than a 
>local OPAC. They just want (good) information. 
>
>This situation of serendipitous discovery is where linked data is 
>uniquely poised to offer added value, and it is possible because 
>machines know the relationships we're putting into the data, not just a 
>key/value pair, as in non-linked data. 
>
>
>
>-Ryan
>
>
>On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:58:37 +0000, Stephen Meyer 
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I think that reducing the use cases to these two historical functions 
>of the catalog might miss Karen's point in why she raises the knowledge 
>card enhancement of a discovery experience. We would not have invested 
>the time in the prototype if we believed our catalog could serve only 
>known item and simple topical discovery.
>>
>>Here I would draw upon the *formal* definition of a user story from 
>agile software development practices (As a..., I want..., So that...). 
>These two cases below only cover up to the want, but not the purpose 
(so 
>that).
>>
>>As a student writing a term paper
>>I want to find information about Gertrude Stein
>>So that I can develop the understanding required to discuss her work's 
>meaning and impact
>>
>>The library's job wraps up at the discovery and access, but the user's 
>job is just beginning at this point of actually using and engaging with 
>the material. So if we conceptualize information seeking as not the 
end, 
>but a step en route to understanding, then yes, a knowledge/info card 
>card is an attempt to enrich the end goal (understanding) not 
>intermediary goal (finding).
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Jeff Edmunds <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The 2 basic use cases for libraries (that involve collections) are:
>>>
>>> 1) User wants to find a specific item (howsoever item is defined).
>>>
>>> 2) User wants to find a manageable amount of information about a
>>> specific topic.
>>======================================================================
=
>==
>=======================================================================
=