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

[Kevin Trainor]

Hi Liliana,

 

I do not know the answer to your question.  But, I will keep my eye out for
OCLC projects using Topic Maps.

 

Regards,

 

Kevin

 

Kevin Trainor

President

Ligent

847-486-8044

 <mailto:ktrainor at ligent.net> ktrainor at ligent.net

www.ligent.net <http://www.ligent.net/> 

 

 

  _____  

From: topicmapsinlis-bounces at ligent.net
[mailto:topicmapsinlis-bounces at ligent.net] On Behalf Of Liliana Melgar E.
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:11 PM
To: Open Library -- general discussion
Cc: topicmapsinlis at ligent.net
Subject: Re: [TopicMapsInLIS] [ol-discuss] Interface for merging authors

 

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/febe9f0e/attachment.html