Quoting Chris Gray <cpgray_at_UWATERLOO.CA>:
> 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.
I second Chris's statement. What the article perhaps doesn't make
clear is that schema.org is about SEO - search engine optimization...
getting your results to the top of the first page in Google, Bing,
Yahoo. It's not about knowledge organization or linking to information
resources. And do note the parenthetical phrase in this sentence:
"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)."
Well, folks, that's our niche! Or it should be.
Schema.org is about adding information to web pages that will
(potentially) modify their ranking in search engines. It also provides
some key information in a standard metadata format that could be used
in displays. I expect that it'll be used by sales sites and other
sites on the web to give basic information like addresses, contact
points, product lists. This should improve retrieval but also means
that search engine displays can be more specific. We could, and
perhaps should, use it on library web sites, but it doesn't help the
catalog since the catalog is in a database and isn't indexed anyway.
So RDF and schema.org have different goals and purposes. Ideally they
could interact, and as schema.org is evolving it is tending to include
examples with URIs for people and organizations, which could then be
used for linking, as in Linked Data.
kc
>
> 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)
>> *************************************************************
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wed Oct 12 2011 - 14:20:01 EDT