I see no reason why any of this is either/or. We can do linked data w/o
RDA, w RDA, w/o FRBR, w FRBR. The main thing is that we cannot do it
WELL with MARC and we cannot "upgrade" MARC to linked data in a way that
will be worth the time and $$. If we had resisted database technology
and Internet technology to the extent that we are resisting linked data,
we'd be either further behind. (BTW, libraries were very cutting edge
in embracing network technologies, from OCLC's pre-Internet network, to
the fact that the first Univ of California campus-wide network was one
built to deliver the online catalog to everyone. Only later did it
become a general technology.)
Doesn't solve any of the problems? It's not a total solution, but if
there were obvious solutions I hope we would have embraced them by now.
Jim, I wish you'd quit railing against things and find something to be
FOR. Not your personal cataloging rules, but something that is likely to
entice others to move forward with you. As one learns in dog-training
classes, no one comes toward you when you are yelling angrily at them.
But they will come if you use a soft voice and offer a treat.
kc
On 10/10/13 9:39 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 5:15 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> <snip>
>> Jim, before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, consider that
>> the linked data universe is a two-way street, and some folks are
>> starting to take advantage of that. Try some searches in the linked
>> catalog at FAO:
>>
>> http://aims.fao.org/openagris
>>
>> where data is pulled into the display that provides supporting
>> information for the actual article or report being displayed, based
>> on data in that article.
>>
>> And try a search at:
>>
>> https://apps.facebook.com/worldcat/
>>
>> and when you get your results, click on "related people and topics".
>> That shows you what links you get using the linked data that is in
>> WorldCat today, and that's without identifiers for places or other
>> types of data that are available for linking.
>>
>> I don't know what your vision of linked data is, but it can provide
>> simple services like book covers and author bios, or it can be big
>> and complex. In some instances it may just be a standardized
>> replacement for some of the APIs people use today. In others, like
>> the use that is made of it by the BBC web site, it really becomes a
>> way to generate whole pages of information around a topic. Don't
>> think of it as a library standard -- it's a data standard, and it's
>> being heavily used as such. It doesn't have to dominate the library
>> view of its data, but we would be foolish not to make use of it.
> </snip>
>
> Karen,
> I have said repeatedly that libraries should go for linked data. The
> major problem is the idea that going into linked data will solve any
> of the real challenges facing libraries. While linked data is a
> promising technology, it is still very young and history is littered
> with the remains of long-forgotten "promising technologies".
> Libraries, of anybody out there, should understand that very well
> since so often in the past many libraries have bet on technologies
> that seemed promising but ended up in the junkyard. Plus, there are
> *lots* of promising technologies on the web today in addition to
> linked data and new ones are popping up all the time.
>
> Yet, linked data is indeed promising. So, I have said that libraries
> should enter the linked data universe, but do it in the least
> disruptive and cheapest way. Doing so does not demand new cataloging
> rules, RDA, FRBR-type formats and so on. FAO doesn't have any of that
> and they are being held up as a model. So, if that's true, then do
> what FAO did and enter into it in the least disruptive and cheapest
> ways possible. You do not do this by changing rules and cataloging
> systems. You do it by exporting a certain type of format and making
> that format available. There are many ways of doing that. Luckily, you
> don't even have to create full-scale RDF today, and there are far
> easier methods.
>
> But this is not the way the library world is going. They have
> convinced themselves that RDA is necessary because the public wants
> it. (Really??!! Who exactly?) That FRBR-style records are needed to
> enter linked data. (Really??!! What about everybody who is in there
> already without it?) Going the library route has been expensive
> already, and will promise to be much more costly in the future. Not
> exactly a recipe for success today.
>
> But nevertheless, go into it with a minimum of fuss and bother. That's
> fine. I have no doubt that once we are in the linked data universe and
> have gained some experience, seeing how positively (or negatively) the
> public and webmasters react, then we will have some real information
> to base future decisions on. I am sure we will discover a lot that we
> do not want to know, but I am just as sure that we will find we need
> to change some cataloging rules and formats and all other kinds of
> other things.
>
> Spending fabulous amounts of money, while waiting even longer before
> moving into the linked data cloud, all in the faith that it promises
> some kind of salvation, is the equivalent of betting the baby's shoes
> on a dice roll. You may get lucky and roll a 7, or you may be looking
> at "snake eyes".
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Oct 10 2013 - 13:27:59 EDT