On 03/03/2012 21:02, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
<snip>
This white paper
http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/whitepapers/open%20conceptual%20data%20models.html
I've found useful in explaining the basic concepts behind the Semantic Web.
The Semantic Web is about turning the web into a database, by using
available web technologies and applying database techniques. It's about
using the web to express and convey conceptual models. Conceptual models
can be built with entity-relationship analyses, which is usually the
first thing done in establishing a data system, no matter how it gets
executed. Such an analysis was done on bibliographic data. It was called
FRBR. As an entity-relationship analysis, it has relevance for any kind
of data implementation, not just the Semantic Web.
Once that analysis was completed, the next step was to develop the
content rules and create the metadata registry of data elements and
vocabulary that are the building blocks for Semantic Web technology.
That was done with http://access.rdatoolkit.org/ and
http://rdvocab.info/ . This is called RDA. So far FRBR and RDA are
batting 1000 for being important for the current domain of library
bibliographic data and establishing its relationship to the Semantic
Web. It's a long way from "very, very slight", which is a bizarre
assertion given the plain facts.
</snip>
I think I have demonstrated that I understand the ideas of the Semantic
Web, Linked Data, Web3.0, and FRBR. It is all theory, still unproven
that it works in today's climate. Whether any of traditional library
metadata really, genuinely worked for patrons in earlier times is an
academic question that, at this point, is a matter for historians to
decide and is irrelevant for us today. I do think that it would be
worthwhile if some library historians would seriously reconsider the
issue, however.
It's obvious that I am not interested in theory focused on "should be"
and "would be". Now--of all times--we should be focused on practical
matters. What can we really and honestly do that will make a difference
to our patrons? Focusing on "shoulds" and "woulds" reminds me of the
Ford Edsel disaster, which I suggest people read about if they don't
already know about it. Here is a short review of a book
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-01-01/features/0301010307_1_edsel-dearborn-disaster,
but there is a lot written about it. Many people today *still* love the
Edsel. I remember how much my grandfather loved his Edsel. It really was
innovative. Take a look at this advertisement with Lucy and Ricky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg4Xd88OZ_8. The photo in this article
speaks volumes, I think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01edsel.html He looks like a
nice enough guy, but he is living in another time, in another world.
The feelings of all those people are completely beside the point. Maybe
they are right: the Edsel should have succeeded, but it didn't, and some
even believe it led to the eventual problems that led to the collapse of
the entire US automobile industry. The fact is, the Edsel ended in
complete disaster, many people were hurt and there is no explaining it
away. Others can only try to understand and not replicate it. Learning
from history, one of the many mistakes with the Edsel was that it came
in during an economic downturn. It was not a practical solution,
especially for the time.
I think it is vital for libraries to survive and whatever that requires,
I really don't care. Our field should not be ideologically driven. No
one in the world--*absolutely no one*--knows how people want to search
for information and what they want to do with that information once they
find it. No one. As I said in my paper in Oslo, if somebody says that
they do, then ignore them because they do not. Many have a few ideas
that may turn out to be right or wrong. I have a few ideas myself, but
it may turn out that we are all completely wrong. Edsel Ford was a
clever man. He really and truly thought he knew what people wanted, but
he was completely wrong.
If we want to enter the Semantic Web, I agree that it's an OK idea, but
we *DO NOT* need FRBR structures to do it. There are many ways to enter
it: easily and cheaply, or we can do it in expensive, disruptive ways
that in this economic climate, may very well may mean, "burning our
bridges". We still don't know what people want, and to maintain that we
do after the experience with web search engines that *don't even allow
them*, to maintain that the public wants and needs the FRBR user tasks I
find equally bizarre.
Now, if somebody can come up with a decent business plan that
demonstrates this, it may be a different matter. Edsel Ford was Henry
Ford's only son and therefore, he did *not* have to show a decent
business plan. Too bad for lots and lots and lots of people who lost
money, jobs and/or their businesses. Edsel and his family were all right
however.
I know you believe that FRBR will solve the information needs of the
public and many agree with you. I find such an assertion very strange in
today's information environment and cannot agree, and I think there are
some who agree with me.
Heading into this new world without a decent business plan is extremely
dangerous. I hope libraries have some "Plan Bs" in their arsenals.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
