Re: [RDA-L] “Work manifested” in new RDA examples

Posting to RDA-L

On 07/06/2012 18:38, Stephen Early wrote:

James Weinheimer wrote:

Find is morphing into something that is really entirely new and never seen before. And with the resources themselves that get more mashed up and vivisected both manually and automatically, it’s increasingly difficult to even say what an “item” is, which has major repercussions on what is a work, expression or manifestation, which I still say are all based on physical materials. And finally, focusing on the traditional access points of author, title, and subject is almost forgotten by the public. Certainly they do it, but they do it through natural language searches which goes far beyond ATS in the expectation that the system will sort it all out. And very often, it does.

A couple definite examples of the mashed up resources please, with explanation as to how and why they don’t fit WEMI so that those more deeply involved in this discussion may be able to review them and then clearly agree or disagree with your points.
You may have done this before, but I mostly skim over these posts. However, I’m sensing a lot of repetition of arguments without a lot of progress being made.

They are all over the place. There is Google News, which mashes up all kinds of things. Programmableweb is a good place to find mashups:   where you can find a lot of them. To understand what they are, there is a great, and short youtube video by ZDNet that explains it really well It explains what an API is and how people can put them together to make their very own mashups.

Here is one called Apartable It takes all the APIs found here which is Facebook, Amazon, and several from Google to make something brand new that may actually help someone find an apartment. I am sure that all of the information exists on those separate websites, and nothing much is on the site, which merely brings it all together. If it’s good, people may be willing to pay for a service like this.

Here is Google Public Data Explorer, which uses the statistics held at Eurostat, the US Census Bureau, etc. to mashup new views based on Google’s graphs and map capabilities. All of these are dynamic, i.e. they are generated on the fly, so it is difficult to call anything an “item.” These mashups are bits and pieces of all kinds of things brought together to make something very personal, very often just for you. Anybody can make these mashups now and they do.

It is important to realize that the bibliographic world is headed precisely into these directions, whether it will be using the so-called linked data or through other means. Our records will be available through APIs (Worldcat has some now) and webmasters will be able to include our records into whatever they make. Developers cannot do so now because of our lousy formats but once we turn output in XML, they will be able to.

Some believe that the reason web developers do not use our records now is precisely because of our obsolete format and once we do have better formats, developers will want our data. I do not agree since I believe the challenges faced by libraries are much more profound than a simple problems in formats, but I admit I would like to be wrong. In any case, we need to change our formats.