"Use of HTTP URIs (URLs) for the identification of library elements, vocabularies and bibliographic data..."
Perhaps the term "data" should be exchanged as it is especially important to use HTTP URIs for bibliographic _resources_ and not only for the data about them.
This paragraph contains a more differentiated view on open data than the previous paragraphs which touch the topic. As said in other comments, a general explanation of 'Open Data' (especially compared to 'Linked Data') is missing in the report.
The heading seems to assume that linked data necessarily means open data. This isn't the case as you can publish data as RDF without an open license or without any license at all (as several organisations do) or as you can even do linked data in an intranet. Also, you can publish linkable data and let it be linked to and then establish a paywall around the data.
In general, the report lacks a clarification regarding the terms "Linked Data" vs. "Open Data".
I suggest adding a paragraph or section to the report which clarifies the two terms, "open data" being about open access, open standards and open licenses in the first place and "linked data" being about a specific set of standards or best practices for publishing data on the web recommended by the W3C. An important aspect of open data is legal compatibility of data while linked data deals with technical compatibility of data.
I think this paragraph has to be fundamentally changed or even omitted. It implicitely argues that individual records are copyrighted. Much speaks for individual records aren't copyrighted at all and that, thus, nobody owns any rights on them. At least in Europe you only have the related database right on collections of records.
I believe the legal status of records is quite clear (not copyrighted), at most this is a grey area. The report shouldn't speak in favour of the view that individual records are copyrightable.
"the need to think of broader bibliographic data exchange (e.g. with publishers) is new and not universally accepted"
I suggest adding scholars to the brackets as an example of communities with which data exchange and interlinking would be very fruitful for academic libraries.
"The openness of data is more an opportunity than a threat. One benefit may be a clarification of the licensing of descriptive metadata towards openness, thus facilitating the reusing and sharing of data and improving institutional visibility."
Open licenses aren't a benefit but an aspect of open data.
The term open is used here for the first time in the report. Its meaning should be made clear, e.g. by means of linking to a section where it is defined.
The distinction between “information produced or curated by libraries that describes resources or aids their discovery” and “data used primarily for library-management purposes” isn’t clear.
It’s clear that e.g. holdings information and user data are omitted. But what about circulation data for a resource, the number and frequency of lendings and co-occurence with lendings of other books? This can aid the discovery of resources through suggestions like “People who borrowed resource A also borrowed resource B, C and D” and thus might be covered by the report (but I think it isn’t).
The distinction between "information produced or curated by libraries that describes resources or aids their discovery" and "data used primarily for library-management purposes" isn't clear.
It's clear that e.g. holdings information and user data are omitted. But what about circulation data for a resource, the number and frequency of lendings and co-occurence with lendings of other books? This can aid the discovery of resources through suggestions like "People who borrowed resource A also borrowed resource B, C and D" and thus might be covered by the report (but I think it isn't).
Login
Register
Register
Your account has been created. Check your email for further instructions on how to log in.
Comments by Users