Re: [NGC4LIB] The Return of Cards? [mailing list]

Posting to NGC4LIB

On 10/11/2013 10:59 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:

It would be useful if you could share examples of what you see as a good approach to doing linked data in libraries. The vast majority of linked data examples I’m aware of are created from existing library catalogue data, and as such aren’t created from ‘FRBR-style’ records.

However, there is a tendency (only a tendency, not a necessity) to try to link similar things when you do linked data, so some of the projects do end up with aspects of FRBR in their linked data – but this is despite, not because of, the record sources. (similarly some discovery products attempt to group records along FRBR lines – again using data available in MARC records rather than changing the underlying cataloguing standards).

I agree with you. I cannot show you FRBR-style records because they don’t exist as yet. That seems to be one of the main purposes of the Bibframe project going on now. The idea is to enact linked data for different parts of the current bibliographic record by splitting current records into the entities “work” “expression” “manifestation” and “item”. Currently, everything is based on the manifestation record, which carries all of the related entity information. Splitting it would turn our current flat files into separate “entities” that will then be linked. Bibframe seems to be going another way, apparently avoiding “work” (I think).

But as you mention, there are other ways to do it. I think the FAO project is as good a model as any to start with. First, FAO does not follow RDA, AACR2 or even ISBD since they have their own cataloging rules. From my own understanding of it, for the format of the bibliographic records (yes, there are records) it uses primarily Dublin Core, but includes BIBO and some elements from other schemes, along with one or two of its own.

For the actual linked data, it uses at least AGROVOC, their agricultural thesaurus now which is also linked open data with links into other thesauri, e.g. Eurovoc and apparently even LCSH now. A lot of the rest of OpenAgris seems similar to federated searching.

Again, if the purpose of all of this is “access” or “resource discovery”, then it seems that ultimately, you want someone to discover and click on a link that leads to you and your information. Then you can “wow” them with all of your fabulous resources, perhaps linked in with other wonderful information. If this is accepted as the basic purpose of linked data (resource discovery in some way shape or form), there is a lot of information in a MARC record that does not need to be exported, so both the format and export could be radically simplified.

To begin with, our records could be exported much as FAO has done, using DC and terms from other schemes, and if something in a MARC record doesn’t really fit, then just don’t export it.

As Bernhard points out, there are some parts of our records that could also be linked, e.g. names and subjects into That service now seems to have a few links into other thesauri but again, when it comes right down to it, I don’t know how useful all of this would be to the majority of users.

It is certainly worth a try, though.