Discussed where below? This paragraph is very intriguing and deserves more attention. It seems related to the migration strategies in the Recommendations. Coming up with a plan for making these two paradigms coexist will be extremely important for the success of LLD.
Although some work has been done to try to change this situation and some progress has been made. (e.g. MARC21 subfield zero) It seems misleading to me to not include some mention of efforts to get around these limitations.
It seems to me that more detail is needed here about the issues with data sharing and the history of cooperative cataloging using centralized databases. This is so brief that it seems to be skirting around the issue. Perhaps just an additional sentence or two.
On the one hand this can be seen as a barrier for libraries to participate in linked data. On the other hand it represents an area where linked data could be a huge improvement for libraries in terms of managing such changes using a different infrastructure (registries, etc.)
But there are ways to address this issue, by providing tools that enable a smooth migration process for libraries to begin using linked data while continuing to use these niche systems. What is needed are cost-effective strategies for moving libraries forward..
I would like to see an acknowledgment of other measures of success for linked data other than those that can be calculated, in particular the ability of libraries to meet the needs of their users. The success of this can best be studied using other methods, such as participatory design, as described in the recent book, "Scholarly Practice, Participatory Design and the eXtensible Catalog" http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=3408.
This paragraph could use some clarification. Who are the "few" in the last sentence? People within the library community? I assume the bibliographic data that needs "smarting up" is meant to be data from outside the library community that would be enriched with data from the library community? This is not clear.
The statement that there are "no tools that specifically address library data" is a bit strong. I suggest at least a mention of emerging tools, such as the eXtensible Catalog, which will help to make library data "linked data ready", if not (currently) to create true linked data yet.
If the statement about the library community only engaging with established technologies is allowed to stand, then there needs to be some explanation of WHY that is the case.
This section deals with libraries being understaffed technologically, so the section on library leaders should probably address the problems that library leaders have in employing technology staff. The points that are made here about libraries taking leadership in LLD should perhaps go in a separate section. I suggest that this also include discussion of how some library organizations are now exploring what actions to take regarding LLD (ALA and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging are two examples) and that what is needed is advice and leadership from outside the library community, to enable library leaders to know what specific steps need to be taken and to make informed decisions. That process is already beginning.
More should be made here (or somewhere in the report) about how the strong cooperative culture that is now present in the library community can be an asset for implementing linked data: use of common vocabularies and standards, consistency of metadata, structures in place to mobilize community action toward a shared goal...
The sentences on library workers do not follow logically one from another. I would like to see this paragraph suggest possible ways to change the way that library workers are educated, or provide continuing education in linked data. Much has been happening in that arena over the past year or so.
Are there any signs that this is beginning to change, where libraries are beginning to interact with these other communities? Cite some examples here? How about the mere existence of this incubator group?
One of the conclusions that I would make from this is that libraries can derive great benefit from linked data to try to address this situation of decreased budgets and inability to extend their missions to include digital information. Libraries have a great NEED for linked data, and this paragraph explains why.
My general impression of this section is that it fairly accurately describes the difficulties that libraries may face to adopting linked data (although some statements may be a bit too sweeping at times - I agree with some of the other comments below). However, my concern is that these challenges and barriers are presented without any attempt to suggest possible solutions to them. Since there are indeed many challenges to the library community, the recommendations presented later in the report do not seem to be adequately justified by the content of the report. In other words, the way the report reads right now, the challenges may outweigh the benefits. I do not believe that is what the report intends to convey, and that is not what is SHOULD convey. I recommend that some of the sections below include at least a brief discussion of possible steps to mediate these challenges and barriers, otherwise the whole situation just begins to seem pretty hopeless. Making the benefits section at the beginning more compelling will also help considerably. I will add other suggestions below where additions could be made.
An important point. We have discovered this first-hand working on the eXtensible Catalog - programmer salaries in libraries cannot compete within the marketplace. This deserves mention in the report.
Same comment as for paragraph 18 - this is a compelling point that should be brought out earlier in the report. Anything related to "lowering the barrier for entry" for libraries for linked data should be emphasized as much as possible.
A very important, and persuasive, point about generating RDF serializations on the fly, rather than "throwing away" current applications. I would suggest adding something general about this in the first section of the report, about Benefits of linked data. This is an important benefit, that libraries do not completely have to retool in order to implement linked data.
Would like to see some expansion of this topic. This is a very important consideration for the migration strategies recommendation later in the document.
This paragraph is unclear. Is it saying that bibliographic datasets for what would commonly be referred to as "library catalog data" have low availability (and if so, can you speculate as to why that is?) or that those datasets ARE available, but that they aren't that important? This would be an appropriate place to mention the need for software tools that help libraries to convert their bibliographic datasets to linked data.
Not exactly sure who the audience for this report is likely to be. If it is general library administrators, they are not likely to understand the term "global graph" unless it is defined here.
This whole section needs to make an even stronger case for why sharing library data as linked data is vitally important for the future of libraries, as well as how library data can contribute valuable data to the semantic web. I would suggest expanding this section and making it as persuasive as possible.
This seems to be lacking something here - add an explanation about how libraries have valuable skills and experience in creating and maintaining authority data and how those activities are important for linked data.
This is a thorough, well-researched, report on a topic that is very important to the future of libraries. I would like to see the report make the strongest possible case for moving forward on its various recommendations for library linked data, while at the same time not minimizing the obstacles that will need to be overcome to make such initiatives successful. To that end, I will contribute suggestions throughout the report that I believe will help to make it as persuasive as possible for supporting library linked data.
Jennifer Bowen
University of Rochester
eXtensible Catalog Organization
Login
Register
Register
Your account has been created. Check your email for further instructions on how to log in.
Comments by Users