Peter Schlumpf writes:
Bill,
You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what I am
trying to do! It's the underlying stuff that I am trying to get
at. Looking at RDF may yield some good ideas. But I am not
thinking in terms of RDF or XML, triples, or MARC, standards, or
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
Yes, we mint something very similar (see http://authority.nzetc.org/52969/
for mine), but none of our interoperability partners do. None of our local
libraries, none of our local archives and
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
We currently use topic maps, alot, in our infrastructure. If we were
starting again tomorrow, I'd advocate using RDF instead, mainly because of
the much better tool support and take-up.
Hmm, not a good thing at all. Could you elaborate, though, as I use it
too as
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
RDF, unlike topic maps, is being used by substantial numbers of people who
we interact with in the real world and would like to interoperate with. If
we used RDF rather than topic maps internally, that interoperability
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
For example the people at http://lcsubjects.org have never heard of us (that
I know of), but we can use their URLs like
http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh90005545#concept to represent our
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
Yes, we mint something very similar (see http://authority.nzetc.org/52969/
for mine), but none of our interoperability partners do. None of our local
libraries, none of our local archives and only one of our local
+1
Sharon M. Foster, 91.7% Librarian
Speaker-to-Computers
http://www.vsa-software.com/mlsportfolio/
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Dueber b...@dueber.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of this except to say
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Dueber b...@dueber.com wrote:
This is hard stuff. But it's worth doing right.
+1
The issue here isn't about serializations or transmission formats.
It's about data modeling. Our current bibliographic data model is
horribly inefficient, with antiquated
, 2009 10:09 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] You got it! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely
different
Bill,
You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what I am trying to do!
It's the underlying stuff that I am trying to get at. Looking at RDF may
yield
...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter
Schlumpf
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:09 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] You got it! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely
different
Bill,
You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what I am trying to do!
It's
thoughts down clearly, but I will share a draft of it with y'all on
here soon.
Peter Schlumpf
-Original Message-
From: Bill Dueber b...@dueber.com
Sent: Apr 9, 2009 10:37 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] You got it! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something
completely different
Bill,
You have hit the nail on the head! This is EXACTLY what I am
trying to do! It's the underlying stuff that I am trying to get
at. Looking at RDF may yield some good ideas. But I am
Cloutman, David writes:
I'm open to seeing new approaches to the ILS in general. A related
question I had the other day, speaking of MARC, is what would an
alternative bibliographic data format look like if it was designed
with the intent for opening access to the data our ILS systems to
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
... anyway, all of this is far, far away from the point. MARC is old
and ugly yes; but then so am I, and I get the job done, just like
MARC. That format is responsible for about 0.2% of our difficulties,
and replacing it
From: Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com
... anyway, all of this is far, far away from the point. MARC is old
and ugly yes; but then so am I,
I don't think you're old, Mike.
--Ray
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
From: Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com
... anyway, all of this is far, far away from the point. MARC is old
and ugly yes; but then so am I,
I don't think you're old, Mike.
And _I_ don't think _you're_ ugly.
:-)
_/|_
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Cloutman, David writes:
I'm open to seeing new approaches to the ILS in general. A related
question I had the other day, speaking of MARC, is what would an
alternative bibliographic data format look like if it was
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of this except to say that Yet Another XML
Bibliographic Format is NOT the answer!
I recognize that you're being flippant, and yet think there's an important
nugget in here.
When you say it that
, but I will share a draft of it with y'all on here soon.
Peter Schlumpf
-Original Message-
From: Bill Dueber b...@dueber.com
Sent: Apr 9, 2009 10:37 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor m
Hi Peter,
Peter Schlumpf wrote:
What I had in mind for something different is this: Think of a
single database of only associations between objects, and nothing
more than that.
If I'm understanding you correctly, what you have in mind is a
triplestore. A database for storing purely
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 22:38, Dr R. Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
I would encourage looking at rdf triplestores seriously, if the graph
approach is the direction that you want to go in.
Or, Topic Maps which is *not* a triplestore, closer to the OO model
(basically a meta data model),
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 22:38, Dr R. Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
I would encourage looking at rdf triplestores seriously, if the graph
approach is the direction that you want to go in.
Or, Topic Maps which is *not* a triplestore, closer to the OO model
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 14:33, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
That's not an entirely useful comparison on topic maps and RDF.
If I indented to be useful I'd write something substantial, backed up
with stuff other than humour. I'll give that a go the next time. :)
We currently use
Ross,
I'm not questioning the technical assertion -- obviously you can combine
properties from different vocabularies. My problem is with making sense
of FRBR in relation to the properties, either in RDA or in bibo. Do you
say that a particular grouping of properties is of type
So, thanks to the help of my coworkers, here's the RDA Elements schema
reformatted in an easier to read presentation:
http://morph.talis.com/?data-uri[]=http%3A%2F%2Frdvocab.info%2FElements.rdfinput=output=exhibitcallback=
I have to say I feel like this schema is trying to both do way too
much
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Peter Schlumpf pschlu...@earthlink.net wrote:
I want to get back to simple things. Imagine if there were no Marc records.
Minimal layers of abstraction. No politics. No vendors. No SQL
straightjacket. What would an ILS look like without those things?
Also back to the original question, what is an ILS in the first place?
The discussion has focused on bibliographic records, but that's just one part
of what's in the ILS in use at the library where I work. I see one of the big
problems with current ILSs being not so much the ILS per se, but
Which is why the interface specifications are at least as important,
if not more important, as the specs for each of the modules that you
enumerated. If the interfaces are well-defined, then the components
can be designed and developed with a minimum of further interactions
among developers. In
Sent: Apr 6, 2009 1:49 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
Cloutman, David wrote:
I'm open to seeing new approaches to the ILS in general. A related
question I had the other day, speaking of MARC, is what would an
alternative bibliographic data
Of
Peter Schlumpf
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:40 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
Greetings!
I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And
libraries too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am,
perhaps, the first
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Peter Schlumpf wrote:
[trimmed]
I want to get back to simple things. Imagine if there were no Marc
records. Minimal layers of abstraction. No politics. No vendors. No
SQL straightjacket. What would an ILS look like without those things?
Sometimes the biggest prison
The linked open data crowd might suggest:
Bibliographic Ontology Specification (aka bibo)
http://bibliontology.com/
Abstract: The Bibliographic Ontology Specification provides main
concepts and properties for describing citations and bibliographic
references (i.e. quotes, books, articles, etc) on
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Joe Hourcle wrote:
Perhaps a slightly different perspective on looking at requirements:
What should be easier to do, but is a pain currently?
My answers to that won't point to a more simplified data structure I think
some are hoping
University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu
From: Code for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Alex Dolski
[alex.dol...@unlv.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:38 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
I
...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of
Peter Schlumpf
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:40 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
Greetings!
I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And
libraries too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
My problem with bibo is that it's strongly oriented toward academic journal
articles... I would like to see a comparison to MARC, if anyone has done
that, which might give us an idea of what isn't there. For example, I don't
It is designed as a container for citations. Articles are one such
example, but that well-understood format is not BIBO's main focus.
They've been going after the tough ones, including legal cases,
conference presentations, letters, etc. Oh, yeah, books, book
chapters, quotations. For a partial
Of
Peter Schlumpf
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:40 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
Greetings!
I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And
libraries too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am,
perhaps, the first
Ross Singer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
My problem with bibo is that it's strongly oriented toward academic journal
articles... I would like to see a comparison to MARC, if anyone has done
that, which might give us an idea of what isn't there.
Of
Peter Schlumpf
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:40 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different
Greetings!
I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And
libraries too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am,
perhaps, the first
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
Still looks pretty limited to me. What academics cite isn't a full
bibliographic universe. No music, no films, no way to do realia. And citing
isn't the same as bibliographic description. Don't get me wrong, I think
it's very
Ross Singer wrote:
Right, but that's how it would work. If these resources were modeled
in RDF, they'd have URIs. What you would do is to say 'bibliographic
things' you'd use bibo attributes with the URI. To say work grouping
things you'd use FRBR/FRAR attributes with the URI.
So as long as
Sorry, spoke/wrote too soon. FRBR at vocab.org isn't using the FRBR
attributes either. And it does have the entities as classes. I'm still
not sure how one can model a relationship between RDA or bibo properties
and FRBR Group 1 entities and their properties. RDA tries to assign
descriptive
Karen Coyle wrote:
Sorry, spoke/wrote too soon. FRBR at vocab.org isn't using the FRBR
attributes either. And it does have the entities as classes. I'm still
not sure how one can model a relationship between RDA or bibo properties
and FRBR Group 1 entities and their properties. RDA tries to
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I'm curious why you think that doesn't work? Isn't place of
publication a characteristic of a particular manifestation? While,
title, according to traditional library practices where you take it
from the title page, is also a characteristic of a particular
Greetings!
I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And libraries too.
Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am, perhaps, the first person
to try to produce an open source ILS back in 1999, though there is a David
Duncan out there who tried before I did. I was
46 matches
Mail list logo
