Quoting Owen Stephens <o...@ostephens.com>:
To be provocative - has the time come for us to abandon the idea
that 'libraries' act as one where cataloguing is concerned, and our
metadata serves the same purpose in all contexts? (I can't decide if
I'm serious about this or not!)
I'm having "deep thoughts" about the logic of our current concept of
cataloging, but nothing clear enough to even blog about. Let me just
say that I'm not at all sure what we would lose if we didn't do
"cataloging" as it is known today.
kc
Owen
Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: o...@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936
On 11 Dec 2011, at 23:47, Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Richard Wallis <richard.wal...@talis.com>:
You get the impression that the BL "chose a subset of their current
bibliographic data to expose as LD" - it was kind of the other way around.
Having modeled the 'things' in the British National Bibliography domain
(plus those in related domain vocabularis such as VIAF, LCSH, Geonames,
Bio, etc.), they then looked at the information held in their [Marc] bib
records to identify what could be extracted to populate it.
Richard, I've been thinking of something along these lines myself,
especially as I see the number of "translating X to RDF" projects
go on. I begin to wonder what there is in library data that is
*unique*, and my conclusion is: not much. Books, people, places,
topics: they all exist independently of libraries, and libraries
cannot take the credit for creating any of them. So we should be
able to say quite a bit about the resources in libraries using
shared data points -- and by that I mean, data points that are also
used by others. So once you decide on a model (as BL did), then it
is a matter of looking *outward* for the data to re-use.
I maintain, however, as per my LITA Forum talk [1] that the subject
headings (without talking about quality thereof) and classification
designations that libraries provide are an added value, and we
should do more to make them useful for discovery.
I know it is only semantics (no pun intended), but we need to stop using
the word 'record' when talking about the future description of 'things' or
entities that are then linked together. That word has so many built in
assumptions, especially in the library world.
I'll let you battle that one out with Simon :-), but I am often at
a loss for a better term to describe the unit of metadata that
libraries may create in the future to describe their resources.
Suggestions highly welcome.
kc
[1] http://kcoyle.net/presentations/lita2011.html
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
