Join the next Metadata Discussion Group meeting, where we’ll welcoming in the new academic year with a discussion about the many possible paths to implementing linked library data. Participants will consider homegrown and vended solutions and think about the implications of when and where to introduce linked data into library data stream.
DATE: Tuesday, September 20 TIME: 9-10 am PLACE: Wells Library Room 043 TOPIC: Paths to a Linked Data Catalog MODERATOR: Jennifer Liss
The Metadata Discussion Group is officially on summer hiatus! In the meantime, we’ll be posting occasional new items. If you have some news to pass along, send us a note.
Uche Ogbuji (@uogbuji) is Partner and Chief Technology Officer of Zepheira. He’s been writing about his work on the LibHub Initiative at the Denver Public Library (DPL). His posts include preliminary observations regarding the impact of converting a library database to published linked data–
If you want to see more library linked data in action, Rachel Fewell of DPL included links in a recent post she wrote, Visible Library.
LibHub aims to use BIBFRAME and Schema.org to make it easier for web crawlers to discover library resources and send users to library websites/catalogs.
When I look at the DPL LibHub “record” for Giraffes, black dragons, and other pianos [click this link and then click on the “No thanks, I’ll stay here” button], I can see that the data is being published on the web as BIBFRAME and Schema.org. If you want to see the markup, hit CTRL+U in your browser then do a find (CTRL+F) for “bf:” and “schema”. You’ll see PURLs. You’ll see some Dublin Core. And lots of something called http://bibfra.me/vocab/lite/ (which is best addressed in a separate post). What you won’t see? Access points (author, subjects, etc.) being associated with their identifiers, such as the Library of Congress Linked Data Service or VIAF. I’d guess that more robust linking is in the works. In any case, it’s good to see more examples of linked library data services being launched.
At this point, I’m fairly certain that only MARC data was used to populate the DPL LibHub dataset (I trust, dear Internet, that you’ll correct me if I’m wrong). DPL uses ContentDM to host their digital collections but I haven’t found any evidence that ContentDM Dublin Core records were included in the conversion. If you find a record from the DPL digital repository in the DPL LibHub dataset, let us know in the comments.
So, do libraries launch datasets on their own in the future? Do we pay for a service to host our data for us? I like the CC-BY license because it requires attribution (metadata provenance is going to be a bigger deal in the LOD world)–is this the way to go? I kept enclosing the word “record” in quotation marks. What do we call the “record” in the linked data environment. Data view?
Below is the email that folks on the Library of Congress’ PCC and CONSER lists received today from Paul Frank. Looks like there are many good resources for us to brush up for the December Metadata Discussion Group meeting.
Don’t know where to start for a good introduction? I recommend downloading the BIBFRAME: Why? What? Who? document.
To assist you in learning more about BIBFRAME and the future bibliographic ecosystem, PCC Secretariat colleagues and I have created a new PCC web page: BIBFRAME and the PCC. It can be accessed from the PCC main page, under the header PCC and BIBFRAME. Please bookmark this new page because we envision it as a centralized gathering point for information, documentation, announcements, etc. on the PCC’s involvement with BIBFRAME’s integration into the information community.
Of special interest to the PCC Secretariat and all of you who completed the PCC BIBFRAME Survey are the analyzed results of the survey: PCC BIBFRAME Survey Results
There is some very interesting reading here. But the results that are most notable – these are the highlights:
Page 1: Respondents identified the types of work they perform. 1233 responses were received to this question:
Page 2: There were seven True/False statements in the survey: The responses indicate that there is a clear understanding that BIBFRAME will replace MARC, and that it will provide a new bibliographic environment. The questions that raise some concerns are Question 3 (BIBFRAME is a new computer system being built by the Library of Congress, and to be shared with all libraries, that is based on Linked Data principles), since LC is not building a new computer system, and Question 5 (BIBFRAME is a project initiated by the Library of Congress to build a next-generation OPAC and ILS), since BIBFRAME is not a an OPAC or an ILS system. BIBFRAME is a set of tools and templates that can be used in the design of an OPAC or ILS System.
Page 3: What are the best ways to communicate BIBFRAME developments and news?
Page 4: Did you know that you can participate in the BIBFRAME testing process and provide feedback?
The PCC Secretariat will be updating the new web page frequently and will notify the PCC discussion lists when major BIBFRAME announcements are made.
Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs
Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4230
This is the second in a two-part series on how libraries might start thinking ahead for BIBFRAME, a standard that is being developed to replace MARC. Much has happened since we last talked about BIBFRAME in October. The website underwent a reorganization, a BIBFRAME editor (for “record” input) was previewed at ALA Midwinter, early implementers are beginning to report on their experiences thus far, and the BIBFRAME Vocabulary and BIBFRAME Authorities specifications were published (note: all of the BIBFRAME documents should be considered to be in “draft” status).
Comments from the community seem to be swaying away from the “this new model is too extreme to accommodate the granularity of our current data” view to “this new model is too conservative to carry our data into the semantic web” view. The concern that the architects of BIBFRAME are seeking to replace MARC rather than remodel bibliographic data in a way that utilizes modern web technologies (particularly in the areas of data exchange) is becoming more pervasive. Now seems to be a great time to discuss a remodel of our data. Does the scope of our data remodel require applying a new coat of paint or demolishing the whole structure and rebuilding from the foundation? How might we use new technologies to meet the fundamental principles of information discovery (and reuse)? All are welcome to participate!
DATE: Tuesday, April 15 TIME: 9:30—10:30am PLACE: Wells Library Room 043 TOPIC: Prepping for BIBFRAME: It’s Time for a Remodel!
RESOURCES YOU MIGHT CONSULT
Good places to start in the new(ish) BIBFRAME documentation (even if you only skim):
 Whether this concern is fair or not, it is a recurring theme throughout the ISQ Winter 2013 issue on the topic, “Evolution of Bibliographic data exchange.” Those who are interested in BIBFRAME and wish to hear an international perspective (from national libraries that already have experience implementing library/archives linked data) may want to read the whole issue.
NISO recently announced the winter 2013 issue of Information Standards Quarterly (ISQ) is available and its theme is the evolution of bibliographic data exchange. This issue is edited by OCLC’s Ted Fons and is freely available on the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) ISQ site.
The Metadata Discussion Group (MDG) tackled BIBFRAME in our October discussion and we agreed that we would like to see more concrete examples of BIBFRAME in action. Therefore, I was thrilled that Jackie Shieh wrote about George Washington University Libraries experience as an early experimenter in the BIBFRAME initiative. While is article focuses more on the administrative side, it is possible that we will start seeing the results of these early experimenters soon. Zepheira and LC’s 2014 plans for BIBFRAME focus on software development and demonstrations, as well as short-term analysis of lingering issues.
It is difficult for library staff to comprehend and anticipate how linked data will affect our workflow, the display of our bibliographic records, and user access/retrieval. I feel like BIBFRAME is a massive trust exercise and we cross our fingers that those who are building and tweaking the model are leading us in the right direction. But, we should try to read as much as possible on the subject since it impacts us greatly. NISO webinars and their publications have been good resources for us on best practices in the library community.