Karen,
I find your response baffling in a number of respects.
> Stephen, Google is only one way to create a graph, and their graph is based on keywords.
I'm always nervous when librarians say that Google provides "keyword" searching. I think anyone who uses the term should define how they are using it, because it whiffs to me of traditional catalogs and rudimentary databases. Google's indexes take into account a whole lot more than the presence of keywords: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Just to be clear, are we talking about the same kind of graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29
>
> Here are three instances of graphs based on library data:
>
> http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-129204
> http://openlibrary.org/subjects/philosophy
> http://agris.fao.org/openagris/searchIndex.action?query=fisheries
>
"Based on library data." Were these tools built based on user testing? How much post facto testing has there been? I've never known a non-librarian to utter the word "WorldCat". I think of this as "cooking with what's in the kitchen." Here's the bibliographic data we have, or the databases we have access to, so let's work with those.
> The LIBRIS system at the Swedish national library works similarly, linking out to data sources like DBpedia using graph technology.
I don't mean to sound tart, but how is this not riding on the backs of the content providers? Other than lack of a profit motive, isn't LIBRIS just doing something similar to what Google does, but over a more restricted set of information?
> Drawing the line at what is in the library makes no sense.
But you very nearly did that exact thing. Sorry, but I see old wine in new bottles.
Steve
Received on Sat Aug 03 2013 - 12:02:53 EDT