On 04/04/2013 17:09, Karen Coyle wrote:
Thanks, Jim. These are great ideas for enhancements to catalogs. The next step is to figure out what metadata we’d need to be able to make use of these. Some of it could be taken care of with microdata (like schema.org, but hopefully better). Some may need more of a linked-data format under the hood. I think this is worth working through in some detail, as a proof of concept.
I’m glad you enjoyed my podcast, Karen. I personally think we are awash in metadata now and we should be thinking how to use that great metadata we have in much better ways than we currently do, before we start on something new. I think an Information Architect would love our metadata, although they would have problems with the formats and wouldn’t understand a lot of it. In my opinion, the very first step should be to do research on the public and try to determine what they do and what they want, and then see what we can realistically provide that would help them. Schema.org has some real problems but ultimately it can be “extended” so it should be doable. At least it would be relatively quick and easy and could make a real difference pretty quickly. You may remember an earlier discussion on this list about it that I enjoyed, e.g. http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2011/10/re-death-of-semantic-web-is-it-so-and-how-does-it-affect-cataloging-on-the-semantic-web-2.html
As you say, linked data may be needed here and there, such as with the authority files so as to get the displays I mentioned using MindMaps or something similar.
Unfortunately, the cataloging community has its hands full trying to deal with the changes of RDA. That will very probably occupy several years (at least) and in the meantime they won’t have much extra time or funding to launch into anything.