Bernhard,
Well, Richard's examples show the underlying RDF, but, at the end of
the day, it's still MARC in the background (or DC or whatever the
institution supplied).
The point, though, is the /potential/ of RDF, not the existing
practice in libraries.
See:
http://research.talis.com/2005/rdf-intro/
for how RDF works and how it could work for library data.
RDF allows us to use URIs to point to other data. So, rather than
shoehorning everything we might need into one record (regardless of
whether or not it's the most appropriate format for that data), we can
disseminate the data over various records (say, authority, or holdings
or whatever new data or local data we want to include) without having
to shove it into the bibliographic record itself. The use of URIs
give us absolute identifiers, so we're not matching on user entered
strings.
-Ross.
On 5/22/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Ross Singer wrote:
> > Ok, then, a good example is:
> > http://cenote.talis.com/
> >
> That does look very interesting, but is there any documentation
> as to how RDF is stored internally and how it is put to work? Are there
> sample records to illustrate the point? Esp., what RDF can do better
> than MARC-based data?
>
> B. Eversberg
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> Hm, I was thinking of systems that not only show how RDF data might look
> >> like but also what conventional OPACs do (or at least some of their
> >> indispensable functions) but then with value-added features based on
> >> RDF, to make it apparent where and how this can do new and better
> >> tricks.
> >> And on a scale of at least a million records more or less equivalent to
> >> MARC records.
> >>
> >>
>
Received on Tue May 22 2007 - 06:48:52 EDT