Martha,
No I hadn't seen this, it's useful work. Great examples in there. I'd
love to see some example RDF based on the rules - that might clarify
some of Karen's questions.
Dan posted a query to the list before, to let you guys see what our
data looks like, here's the tinyurl version (that works)...
http://tinyurl.com/3xpxdc
Karen, Martha, How does that compare with what you were thinking?
rob
On 30 Nov 2007, at 17:44, Martha Yee wrote:
> Have either of you looked at the RDF model at my web site
> (http://myee.bol.ucla.edu) yet? Unless I am misunderstanding you,
> I believe
> these rules and this RDF model are trying to do what you are asking
> us to
> do... The question for me is whether our current deprofessionalized
> staffing is capable of implementing such a complex set of rules and
> such a
> complex model...
>
> Martha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]On Behalf Of Riley, Jenn
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:14 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules for a more
> FRBR-ized catalog, with an RDF model
>
>
>> Martha Yee wrote:
>>> I have written elsewhere about the fact that our rules and our
>> cataloging
>>> data are already considerably FRBR-ized and that what is lacking for
>> the
>>> creation of true FRBR-ized catalogs is adequate software support.
>>
>> Martha, you and I have discussed this at length, so you know that I
>> disagree that the problem lies with systems. It is true that
>> bibliographic records are very rich and contain a lot of important
>> data.
>> However, as long as bib data continues to be expressed as text
>> strings
>> that require human interpretation, systems will NOT be able to
>> make use
>> of the underlying concepts. This is one of the great errors in the
>> RDA
>> drafts that we have seen: the bibliographic description continues
>> to be
>> textual in nature, with relationships left as implicit in that
>> text. We
>> need rules that can make explicit what today is implicit. And we
>> need a
>> bibliographic record carrier that can carry those explicit
>> expressions.
>
> Surely, now, the problem is to some degree both with the data and the
> systems. There is a great deal more systems could do with our
> existing data,
> but our current data structures also in some cases make it
> significantly
> more difficult than it should be (and sometimes impossible) for
> systems to
> do more advanced things imagined by this group.
>
> I see much of the current debate about why our catalogs don't function
> better as finger-pointing -- "if only *they* (some group other than
> mine)
> would do it better..." I think to move forward we need to accept
> that all of
> us have something to contribute, and take responsibility for making
> that
> contribution. I have every hope that the work that has been done to
> improve
> systems will demonstrate some of the possibilities, and in turn
> both inspire
> more innovative system development and expose areas in which our
> data could
> be better-structured in order to enable more robust discovery and use
> services.
>
> Jenn
>
>
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 05:43:15 EST