[TopicMapsInLIS] [ol-discuss] Interface for merging authors

[Liliana Melgar E.]

Hi,

I wonder why the library community, as far as I know, hasn't considered the
Topic Map model for all this purposes. As I understand, this standard (*ISO*
/IEC 13250:2000) has many possibilities for merging, for modelling many
types of structures (including Marc, Dublin Core, FRBR, thesauri,
taxonomies, etc.), for managing multilinguality (with the scope
functionality) and many things to say about how to identify things in the
Web.

Does anyone knows if Library of Congress or OCLC has consider Topic Maps in
their possibilities for the current and future projects?

And I agree, what an interesting thread...

Liliana

2009/2/5 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>

> David Mimno wrote:
> > I can not approach the thoroughness with which Lee addressed these
> issues,
> > but I would like to echo his implicit plea that the library technical
> > community build closer relationships with current research in data
> > processing, particularly in XML databases and what is alternately called
> > record linkage, database deduplication, and named entity coreference.
> >
> >
> >
>
> This work has begun in various quarters. In fact, even the MARC
> advocates, Library of Congress, have recently agreed to register their
> data elements in RDF and SKOS, and make them available as LOD. The
> newest set of cataloging rules (which have virtually nothing to say
> about the record format) have resulted in an RDF registry of properties
> (http://metadataregistry.org) and SKOS values. Real soon now we hope to
> have the FRBR entities registered so we can create application profiles
> that address work, expression, manifestation and item. All of these use
> URIs as identifiers for properties and values. With these in place it
> will be plausible to experiment with new record formats. However, I hope
> that the end result is that library data gets out of databases and on to
> the web. Lee's 'normal forms' notwithstanding, hiding data in databases
> today is... hiding data. MODS, while more flexible than MARC, carries
> forward the 'data in database' concept and doesn't use linked data
> forms. I see MODS as a 'sandbox' for early experimentation, and as that
> it has served us well. But it's time to move on. Right now we're
> investigating how to connect the OL with DBpedia. It's an interesting
> balance between structure and user-friendliness. But with today's
> technology, I think that LOD is the way to go.
>
> kc
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ol-discuss mailing list
> Ol-discuss at archive.org
> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss
>



-- 
Liliana Melgar
Erasmus Mundus student
International Master in Digital Library Learning
http://dill.hio.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ligent.net/pipermail/topicmapsinlis/attachments/20090205/9597edad/attachment.html