The problem I see here and I see in many other places in Libraryland
is people getting trapped in the alphabet soup of paradigms. HTML5,
RDF, Semantic Web, XML, Dublin Core, &ct. And especially MARC which
finally needs to crawl into a hole and die. These things can become
mind prisons when we identify with their forms. They are all made-up
arbitrary stuff anyway.
I have been doing my own work on semantic data structures. Take a
look at http://www.avantilibrarysystems.com , such as it is right now.
It is not dead.
Peter Schlumpf
www.avantilibrarysystems.com
On 10/12/11, Diane Hillmann <dih1_at_cornell.edu> wrote:
> Some additional points to ponder: Karen is exactly right in pointing to SEO
> as the primary reason for the schema.org effort. The Dublin Core Metadata
> Initiative has already begun to think about aligning DC with schema.org, and
> we could point out the obvious advantage to this would be that automated
> metadata creation tools could use this alignment to provide useful data for
> libraries and others.
>
> See:
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Schema.org_Alignment&ct=ga&cad=CAcQAhgBIAEoBDABOABAhojW9ARIAVgAYgVlbi1VUw&cd=l5FFQLa8nKg&usg=AFQjCNGPueZ9ORjigyrzC4bs71QqtqUkYA>
> for
> more on that beginning effort.
>
> Also, from the point of view of the search engine community, this
> optimization by embedding metadata is their one-and-only use case for
> metadata. Those of us who remember early attempts to embed DC properties in
> web pages also know some limitations of this approach: it assumes metadata
> is static and unchanging, and makes it virtually impossible to maintain or
> re-use. We have a lot more than that we hope to do, and that niche, should
> we chose to accept it, really uses our skills and experience to the utmost.
>
> Diane Hillmann
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> 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<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/<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.orgostensibly
>>>> 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 <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/ <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<http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:
>>>> NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.**EDU <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/<http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/>
>>>> Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/**opencatalogingrules/<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 - 16:10:34 EDT