I'm going to 'fourth' Owen's suggestion, or maybe second-and-a-half it,
by saying that the bibliographic data must be addressable, and the
address must return at least one actionable service, such as a copy of
the record in a standard format or a description of available
services/formats. As it is today, most URI's act as URLs and take you to
the record in a particular database. I'm just not sure that's what's
needed, because that would mean that you would have to decide whose
library catalog you want to link to, whereas the URI should really be
about the resource, not its location in a single catalog. This then
takes us to Martin's one step: an ecosystem of bibliographic data, not a
bunch of separate catalogs.
kc
Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> On 3/17/09 11:37 AM, "Martin Malmsten" <martin.malmsten_at_KB.SE> wrote:
>
>
>> My one step: Linked Open Data. Our ecosystem is hurting because the
>> data is not free. We have less innovation (than other sectors) because
>> our data is not free.
>>
>> So, basically I second Owen's suggestion with the addition that the
>> resource the URL points to should be able to describe itself and
>> provide links to other resources in a machine readable (machine
>> understandable?) way.
>>
>
>
> I "third" Owen's suggestion, and I made an attempt to describe the
> philosophy and implementation of linked data in the following post:
>
> http://serials.infomotions.com/ngc4lib/archive/2009/200903/0311.html
>
> It behooves us to make our data more accessible, specifically, through
> persistent URLs. Once done, other people (and computers) will be able to
> mix, match, repurpose, and use our content in ways that they need.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 Mar 17 2009 - 12:00:50 EDT