Well said :)
Essentially this semantic linking is some of what LibraryThing provides - but I think in a proprietary way (I'm open to correction, as I say, I haven't had time to explore what you can achieve here to my own satisfaction). What the linked data and semantic web movements are trying to do is formalise a way of doing this that essentially anyone could use.
This isn't easy (and the Semantic Web has been promised for quite a while now), but I feel like we are on the cusp of something here, and that everyone (not least the libraries themselves) would benefit from libraries being involved.
Owen
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
Central Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus
London
SW7 2AZ
t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: 17 February 2009 14:42
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FRBRization in LT, was: Personal perspectives on
> catalog use
>
> I agree greatly with Owen. I also think that in reality we are already
> in a world of inconsistency and duplication, but our approach is to see
> that as wrong rather than as something to work with.
>
> I think many librarians resist the 'ambiguous linking' capability
> because in past experience statements of 'these two are the same thing'
> caused one of them to disappear from view. Instead, links can be just
> more information about the item, which you can choose to make use of or
> not. One set of links shouldn't preclude other links, or ignoring links
> altogether. What we need, desperately, is meaningful links -- that is,
> links with semantics, not just 'this links to that, who knows why?'
>
> kc
>
> Stephens, Owen wrote:
> > I've posted some thoughts that are around this area at
> http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/2009/02/the-future-is-
> analog.html and http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/2009/02/a-
> plethora-of-library-systems.html - although this is the ongoing
> construction of a view/argument about where we should go, and I have
> some more posts brewing to develop this view.
> >
> > Essentially I think that we work in a world that is full of
> inconsistency and duplication, and that the direction we need to head
> in is that one that embraces this. I also think that this means using
> linked networks of information - essentially this is what the web is,
> and we need to exploit this rather than using it as a means of point-
> to-point communication.
> >
> > LibraryThing has some definite strengths, and I'm convinced that it
> takes the right approach in allowing individuals to link together
> (seemingly disparate) things. I'm not sure (and it is something I keep
> meaning to find time to explore) how well this might work if I want to
> interact with LibraryThing from the outside - there is definitely some
> potential here, as I can link to items in LibraryThing, so I can say
> 'this is linked to this' - which is definitely a start, and somewhat
> ahead of many OPACs. If there are any examples of people exploiting
> LibraryThing 'from the outside' I'd be very interested in looking at
> them (I'm not just thinking of LibraryThing for Libraries, but perhaps
> more general exploitation - although LT for L is perhaps an example)
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > Owen Stephens
> > Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
> > Central Library
> > Imperial College London
> > South Kensington Campus
> > London
> > SW7 2AZ
> >
> > t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
> > e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> >> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> >> Sent: 17 February 2009 10:38
> >> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FRBRization in LT, was: Personal perspectives
> on
> >> catalog use
> >>
> >> Stephens, Owen wrote:
> >>
> >>>> There may even be wide consensus on both the
> >>>> concept and the invented titles, but this "method" would be hard
> >>>> to formulate into a rule that could be incorporated into RDA or
> >>>> any catalog code at all.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Maybe there is a lesson in this?!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes: cataloging should rather be looked upon as less of a science
> than
> >> RDA or even AACR seems to be aspiring to.
> >> The downside would be a deterioration of predictability and
> >> reproducibility of its results since it would have to allow for
> more
> >> individual judgement. IOW, less standardized results, with all that
> >> might mean for interoperability. More duplicates, to mention one
> thing.
> >> (With whom does LT interoperate, and how, other than via ISBN? Which
> is
> >> not good enough for libraries in general.)
> >>
> >>
> >> B.Eversberg
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
Received on Tue Feb 17 2009 - 11:23:51 EST