On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Alexander Johannesen
<alexander.johannesen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> (You spoke of the NRK use case of which I have insider information
> that suggests that LCSH isn't suitable, mostly by virtue of being poorly
> and too slowly maintained as a Norwegian subset).
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. NRK isn't using LCSH to my
knowledge. What I was saying is that when the Use Case document
prepared by NRK was put on the web at the w3c by Ivan Herman he put
some metadata in the page to say that the document was about "Semantic
Web" [1] and "Broadcasting" [2]. I believe Ivan did this for all the
Use Case documents.
> In fact, let's venture out on a controversy limb; what good is LCSH
> for, apart from being part of a huge body of mostly books? What can
> modern systems gain from adopting LCSH in as their classification
> platform?
I don't think it's controversial at all to say that actually. I doubt
many people believe that LCSH can serve as a general classification
system. If they did they should take a look at some work Simon Spero
has done [3].
> We all do this, and we all know the dangers and pitfalls of thinking
> we understand how to interpret server logs. It's an art wrapped in
> mystery and smoke. :)
Yes, and you are right it can be spoofed and gamed quite easily. Still
if something like:
66.249.65.147 - - [15/Nov/2009:04:27:43 -0500] "GET
/authorities/sh85138796 HTTP/1.1" 200 1185
"http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/NRK/" "LinkerBot 1.0"
"application/rdf+xml"
Showed up in my logs, I could write software to find it, and then
resolve <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/NRK/> myself
to verify that the content there actually used
<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85138796>. The idea is fully baked of
course.
//Ed
[1] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85017004#concept
[2] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85017004#concept
[3] http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/ojs/pubs/article/view/937
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 23:43:28 EST