Eric Lease Morgan schrieb:
>
>>> If we wish to do linking and to take advantage of data on the Web that could
>>> be related to our bibliographic data, then we must change how our data is
>>> stored. Names could be freely floating, if properly identified with URIs.
>> I'd have to see working examples, end to end, to understand it. My
>> imagination isn't up to this, somehow...
>
>
> The idea of creating relationships between entities with URIs is very
> closely tied to the concepts of the Semantic Web and the implementation is
> increasingly called "linked data".
>
That's not what I didn't understand. What I was getting at was just that
data should no longer be envisioned as stored in "records" but in some
other way. In which way? was my question.
>
> Next-generation library catalogs should implement linked data concepts.
We've done that in Europe for decades. That's why, *finally*, the
concept of IdNumbers for names and other fields found its way into MARC
where it had been *sorely missing*. See
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp01.html
and what I mean is the new subfield $0 in 100, 110 etc.
> Finally, the use of linked data is yet another example of how librarianship
> needs to change its methods. We still need to describe materials, but we
> need to do it differently.
>
Sure, and that means MARC will have to change. But it hardly means MARC
would have to dissolve and records disintegrate.
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Mar 06 2009 - 05:25:29 EST