Paul Miller lists some interesting articles on the Semantic web on
Nodalities today
(http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/09/the_semantic_web_is_everyone_
c.php), and in doing so reflects on some of the issues himself.
The one that seems to go into most detail is a posting by Alex Iskold,
including the passage:
----
4. The Standards Issue: A distributed or self-organizing approach to the
problem seems the most promising, but it runs into the classic
technology issue of standards or the even more ancient human problem of
common language. The history of technology is full of Tower of Babel
examples - separate distributed systems that do not talk to each other.
A common solution is to build an adapter or translator that maps
concepts from one system to another.
For example, suppose there are representations of a book defined by
Barnes and Noble and Amazon. Each has common fields like ISBN and
Author, but there maybe subtle differences, i.e., one of them may define
edition like this: 1st edition and the other like this: edition 1. This
seemingly minor difference, one that people would not even think twice
about, would wreak havoc in computers.
The only way to have interoperability is to define a common standard for
how to describe a book. So having self-describing documents is not
enough, because there still needs to be a literal syntactic agreement in
order for computer systems to interoperate. The bottom line is that
there needs to be a standard and an API.
----
What do you know - apparently we need to define a common standard for
how to describe a book - anyone got any ideas?
Owen
PS More seriously - this just show how much we really need to engage in
this...
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: e-Strategy and Information Resources
Imperial College London Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington
London SW7 2AZ
Tel: 020 7594 8829
Email: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
> Sent: 20 September 2007 22:26
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] data vs "data structure"
>
> Jonathan:
>
> But we've had this discussion so many times before, we just keep going
> round. (end)
>
> Yes, we have - but this is what is so terribly confusing: the
> difference
> between data and data structure... Is there any way to make
> all of this
> more concrete? If it is not the content (again, loaded with
> complicated
> vocabulary control rules so as to help libs from various
> locales to work
> together) of a typical MARC record that is outdated or has
> outlived its
> usefulness, but rather the "data structure" (container), what exactly
> does this mean? How can we map it to make it easier to understand?
>
> I don't think this is a small matter. Karen Schneider wrote
> about this
> topic here: http://tinyurl.com/35n4at
>
> At the end of all of the posts she writes the following:
>
> "If you're reading this far, note that in the editing of this piece,
> 'data structure' changed to 'data.' We have great data. We just don't
> have good data structure. Sigh." (end)
>
> So, evidently, here we have a case where the editors of the piece
> thought changing "data structure" to "data" would facilitate
> understanding - in any case, should I assume that they thought
> exchanging one word for the other didn't really make much of a
> difference?
>
> But it does make a difference, right? I'll admit I could use
> some more
> guidance on this if anyone has some super helpful articles.
>
> Regards,
> Nathan Rinne
> Media Cataloging Technician
> ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
> 11200 93rd Ave. North
> Maple Grove, MN. 55369
> Work phone: 763-391-7183
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] As a Library 'decision maker'
>
> I think quite a bit of the way that the catalog _records_ are
> structured
> (and not structured) is also a legacy of the card catalog error, and
> equally needs to be changed just as much as the catalog
> interface does.
>
> But to be clear, yes, there is a lot of power in catalog
> records that is
> not found in Google. That should not be lost in any changes. There is
> also a lot of power that is _intended_ to be in catalog
> records, but the
> nature of the structure of those catalog records makes it too hard to
> take advantage of that power. That needs to be fixed.
>
> But we've had this discussion so many times before, we just keep going
> round.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> > Janet Hill wrote:
> >
> >> If you define "catalog" as the discovery tool maintained
> by a library
> >> (or
> >> group of libraries) through which information seekers may obtain
> access
> >> through various mechanisms to information resources --
> whether owned
> (or
> >> leased) by the particular institution or not -- then its use will
> certainly
> >> be greater than if you define "catalog" as the tool that provides
> >> access in
> >> a single listing utilizing a single methodology, and only to
> materials owned
> >> (or leased/subscribed to) by the local institution.
> >>
> >
> > Also, there needs to be an understanding, especially on
> librarian/professional lists, that there is a difference between the
> catalog *records* and the catalog *interface.* The interface of the
> catalog is obsolete and based on the card catalog. There have
> been a few
> attempts--only recently--to change this, but basically, the ways the
> catalog works hasn't changed much in the last 100 or so
> years. The only
> real change has been in the introduction of the keyword
> search, but that
> was achieved with the introduction of the OPAC. The latest
> "novelty" of
> the OPAC now is that it works more like a card catalog(!), in that the
> user can see the lists of headings. Big wow!
> >
> > But it must be confessed that the traditional library catalog allows
> types of searching that Google, Yahoo and the like *cannot do* in any
> way: the traditional catalog allows for the searching of concepts
> instead of just text. Once I demonstrate this to my students,
> they begin
> to want conceptual access over other resources on the web. Everybody
> needs to understand this, and only then can we make a decision whether
> the traditional catalog needs to continue.
> >
> > Certainly, the catalog interface is obsolete and needs to
> be trashed,
> but the records that allow for conceptual searching need to
> be retained
> and used to much greater effect than they are today. The "local
> collection" is a fiction that no longer exists with so many
> high-quality
> materials available on the web. One of the problems and tragedies is
> that so few people, including information professionals, seem to
> understand this today.
> >
> > James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> > Director of Library and Information Services
> > The American University of Rome
> > Rome, Italy
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Digital Services Software Engineer
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
Received on Fri Sep 21 2007 - 04:34:35 EDT