Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Alexander Johannesen wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates 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 m

[CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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, standard

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates 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 museums (by > virtue of so

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Alexander Johannesen wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates 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 roles. Not sure I understa

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates 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 would > be much, much

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 par

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

+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 wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: > >> I'm not sure what to make of this except to say that Yet Another XML >> Bibliog

Re: [CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

to:code4...@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 d

Re: [CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

er that explains how this stuff works at a very low level. It's mostly an effort to get my thoughts down clearly, but I will share a draft of it with y'all on here soon. Peter Schlumpf -Original Message----- From: Bill Dueber Sent: Apr 9, 2009 10:37 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV

Re: [CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

...@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'

Re: [CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

, 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Dueber 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 design ideas and f

[CODE4LIB] You got it!!!!! Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

n clearly, but I will share a draft of it with y'all on here soon. Peter Schlumpf -Original Message- >From: Bill Dueber >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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor 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 way, it makes it

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor 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 designed > >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes: > From: "Mike Taylor" > > > ... 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. :-) _/|_

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

From: "Mike Taylor" ... 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor 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 would make ess

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 t

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 14:33, stuart yeates 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 topic maps, alot, in o

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Alexander Johannesen wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 22:38, Dr R. Sanderson 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 m

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 22:38, Dr R. Sanderson 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), and don't carry the s

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Peter Schlumpf wrote: From: Alex Osborne If I'm understanding you correctly, what you have in mind is a triplestore. A database for storing purely relationship triples and Close. What I have in mind looks more like just pure objects and pointers. Think in purely abstra

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

-Original Message- >From: Alex Osborne >Sent: Apr 8, 2009 4:40 AM >To: Peter Schlumpf >Cc: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different >If I'm understanding you correctly, what you have in mind is a >triplestore. A d

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 relati

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

age- > >From: Karen Coyle > >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 >

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 li

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 fac

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Peter Schlumpf 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? Back to this original

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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.rdf&input=&output=exhibit&callback= I have to say I feel like this schema is trying to both do way too much

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 FRBR:Manifesta

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Right, ok, so an RDF graph can say the same resource is multiple things at the same time, so that's how you deal with this: rdf:type . dc:title "Doctor Zhivago"@en . dc:creator

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 manifes

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 ass

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 pro

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 t

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Karen Coyle 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 complete as

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

lumpf 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 person to try to

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

Ross Singer wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Karen Coyle 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 for. 1. For a serial title, identify if a pa

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

chlumpf 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 person

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 lis

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

vices Librarian Marin County Free Library -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Karen Coyle 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 > see the variou

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

ibrarian > Marin County Free Library > > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@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 dif

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 see the various work/work, work/expression relationships. But it has g

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

nia State 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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 for.

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 i

Re: [CODE4LIB] Something completely different

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 person to try to pr

[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 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 th