In fact, the interesting thing is that 'microdata' _is_ the semantic
web, in my opinion. It's just an alternate syntax for expressing
exactly the same thing you could in RDFa. The author says "For years
semantic web purists have been preaching that the future is all about
RDF and triples."
Guess what, microdata _is_ triples! Although by not using that word, it
keeps it more accessible, this is true.
You can express RDF in microdata if you want, although I'm not sure if
the official RDF community has caught on to that yet, they will. Just
like RDFa is a way to serialize RDF-style triplets in HTML, microdata
can be used to serialize RDF-style triplets in XML.
That said, i've thought for a while that library metadata ought not to
to tie it's horse too closely to any _particular_ technology. I think
the future of RDF specifically _is_ uncertain. However, what we DO need
to do is control our metadata in consistent, rationale, contemporary,
machine-actionable ways. Using RDF as a model is one reasonable way to
do that, not neccesarily the only reasonable way to do it, but the one
the RDA Vocabulary implementors took, and it is not unreasonable. What
the RDA vocabulary implementers have accomplished is in fact something
that's useful beyond any specific technology or platform like RDF.
So I've never quite agreed with the propaganda "See, if we do it in RDF,
then it'll be great, because everyone else uses RDF." But in our
community it's sadly still easier to try and dazzle people with
buzzwords like RDF, or say we've got to do something because "everyone
else is doing it", then to get down to technical brass tacks, and say:
We've got to control our metadata rationally for _us_ AND for people
outside the library world. We are using RDF as a framework, but that
doesn't mean what we're doing it in a way that will only be useful if
everyone and their mother adopts RDF, we aren't.
Because nobody understand what we're talking about. We _still_ have
arguments on this list where people argue strenuously that AACR2+MARC is
perfectly suitable, and they don't see any reason to do anything else.
It ain't true. But if you can't even get past that, some people give up
and resort to trying to dazzle with buzzwords like "RDF". I think it's
a mistake, precisely because your audience which still doesn't really
understand what's going on can be out-dazzled by someone else's
propaganda instead.
On 10/12/2011 1:38 PM, Chris Gray wrote:
> I'd take that article with a block of salt. See
> <http://semanticweb.com/the-semantic-web-is-dead-hardly_b23413>. Not
> that there isn't a pie-in-the-sky aspect to full-blown Semantic Web.
>
> Chris Gray
> Systems Analyst
> 519-888-3456, ext. 35764
> cpgray_at_uwaterloo.ca
> University of Waterloo
>
> On 2011-10-12 12:35 PM, Sanchez, Elaine R wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Does anyone on this list have an idea on what the following article
>> means, if anything, for Cataloging on the Semantic Web, use of RDA,
>> necessity of the granularity of bibliographic data, the future of
>> transition from MARC to something else, difference between XML and
>> RDF and does this affect our current projected plans? It seems to
>> indicate that the Semantic web is dead.
>>
>> I don't usually post on this list because it is almost always above
>> my head, but I thought this would be a good place to ask these
>> questions. I could try Autocat, but I thought this would be a more
>> applicable list.
>>
>> Anyway, the full article is here:
>> http://www.semantico.com/2011/09/triple-bypass-what-does-the-death-of-the-semantic-web-mean-for-publishers/
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>> Triple Bypass - What Does the Death of the Semantic Web Mean for
>> Publishers?
>> The Discover Blog, September 20, 2011; by Richard Padley
>> The announcement by Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft of schema.org
>> ostensibly marks the end of the semantic web (Web 3.0). Schema.org
>> focuses on "rich snippets" to add semantic meaning to web content and
>> to have it structurally recognized by search engines. Rather than
>> using the rich RDFa of the Semantic Web, schema.org bases rich
>> snippets on HTML5. Although the use of RDF and triples has been
>> touted for over a decade, it has yet to have any significant
>> practical implementations (other than niche areas like taxonomy).
>> Search has the most to gain from semantics and the search companies
>> have clearly bypassed RDF. Publishers still need to understand that
>> semantics are important as is well-designed XML content. But it also
>> means you can step away from RDF, triples, OWL, and related semantic
>> technology. XML workflows are where you need to focus your delivery
>> to participate in the schema.org search world.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Elaine Sanchez
>> Texas State University-San Marcos
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of NGC4LIB automatic
>> digest system
>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:00 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: NGC4LIB Digest - 9 Oct 2011 to 10 Oct 2011 (#2011-174)
>>
>> There is 1 message totalling 91 lines in this issue.
>>
>> Topics of the day:
>>
>> 1. Technology advances
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:54:29 +0100
>> From: Ken Chad<ken_at_KENCHADCONSULTING.COM>
>> Subject: Re: Technology advances
>>
>> I get some feelings of déjà vue as enterprises like Amazon look to
>> reinvent the old notion of the commercial circulating library --but
>> based on (digital
>> content) ebooks. The 'Library' (it had the word in big letters on the
>> shop
>> front) in my home town High Street was a commercial circulating
>> library . It was a kind of 'one-stop-shop'. It had a lending library
>> at the back and also sold all kinds of other goods. The public
>> library with its crazy and radical social market based business model
>> put it out of business in the 1960s.
>>
>> I've been doing some really interesting work on strategy with some
>> great librarians in public and academic libraries. It's been related
>> to reviewing and re-aligning their library technology infrastructure
>> (ILS, Archives, Repository etc). I think it's a good time for
>> libraries to look again and think hard strategically. Very often what
>> looks like a strategy is really a 'mission' or a strategic 'goal' (or
>> set of goals) without any clear sense ('guiding principle' is the
>> phrase used by Richard Rumelt in 'Good Strategy, Bad Strategy') of
>> how that it be achieved using the library's key 'capabilities'. Of
>> course this isn't a problem unique to libraries...far from it. But we
>> do face a particular combination of budget cuts and disruptive and
>> highly competitive technologies and services. So taking a hard look
>> at strategy now seems to me to be worthwhile. I recently spoke at a
>> couple of library events on this theme
>> http://www.kenchadconsulting.com/conferences/
>>
>> Ken
>> Ken Chad Consulting Ltd
>> Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: ken_at_kenchadconsulting.com
>> www.kenchadconsulting.com
>> Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad
>> Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
>> Sent: 29 September 2011 18:49
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Technology advances
>>
>> On 28/09/2011 22:00, Joe Hourcle wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> And a lot of it's not in books (or journals, or other bibliographic
>> materials), and never will be.
>>
>> ... but it still needs to be collected, cataloged, preserved, etc.
>>
>> All of the skills of a librarian apply, it's just on something other
>> than books.
>> As for the library as an organization, you still need a place to
>> store the collected stuff. (and for the stuff I deal with, I still
>> feel I'm closer to a librarian than an archivist, so I can't say that
>> place is an archive, even if that's what most people call us)</snip>
>>
>> As the library's holdings become more virtual, it seems to follow
>> logically that the library itself will become more virtual as well.
>> If the "library-as-a-place" continues to exist, it will probably
>> become more of a locality for people to meet, e.g. group and town
>> meetings, perhaps also as an restful sanctuary for personal
>> reflection; naturally it will be a place to get a decent cup of coffee.
>>
>> But the idea of the library as a physical place to find information (the
>> collection) and where I can find the answers to my questions
>> (reference) is disappearing even now. It's amazing how quickly this
>> has changed!
>>
>> Nevertheless, I do not believe that materials can either organize
>> themselves or that a mathematical formula can do it, no matter if
>> just looking at that formula will make your hair stand on end and
>> leave you speechless for a couple of days! Relying on a tool to
>> determine something as vague as "relevance"--a tool that can be
>> manipulated in all kinds of extremely clever ways to serve the
>> purpose of either the greed or propaganda of unknown people (read
>> "search engine optimization"), is really a frightening prospect.
>>
>> If librarians play it right, there will be plenty of need for their
>> skills and ethics. But I don't know--it is a very difficult time for
>> everyone.
>>
>> --
>> James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com First Thus:
>> http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
>> Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
>> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of NGC4LIB Digest - 9 Oct 2011 to 10 Oct 2011 (#2011-174)
>> *************************************************************
>
Received on Wed Oct 12 2011 - 13:54:47 EDT