Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Laura Krier]

Thanks to everyone for the conversation re: barriers to open metadata. Your
feedback is really helpful!

Laura


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> On 4/30/14, 9:19 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
>
>> If libraries aren't willing to put in the the effort to make their own
>> data
>> more useful and connected, then I don't think they are going do much of
>> anything useful very with "linked data cake" served on a silver platter.
>>
>> Are you really suggesting that we cede linked data creation, management
>> and
>> curation to vendors.
>>
> Gee, that's pretty sarcastic. No, I am suggesting that there is a needed
> service to help folks with textual data take that first step: adding the
> identifiers for those strings, like adding $0 fields to their MARC records.
> Perhaps you weren't around for the previous transitions, but such services
> jump-started both the conversion of cards to MARC and AACR to AACR2. You
> may not be aware but OCLC and other vendors provide conversion services of
> this nature on a continuing basis. It's much more efficient than having
> every library do the same coding for themselves. Oh, and remember that we
> share cataloging through copy cataloging services. There are lots of things
> that it just doesn't make sense to "do it yourself."
>
> kc
>
>
>
>
>> Chad
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2014 10:28 PM, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>>
 In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
 similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
 Roy

>>> Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same
>>>
>> leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized that
>> in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what we had
>> was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an impossible
>> task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be possible.
>>
>>> I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully
>>>
>> resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is
>> not
>> as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can learn --
>> that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, John" with
>> title
>> "Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's my book"). This is
>> what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a lot of this when
>> merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when determining what are
>> works, and when bringing authority entries together for VIAF. No, you
>> don't
>> get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now with any of our services.
>>
>>> And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you
>>>
>> walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and
>> show
>> you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake -- if
>> you
>> could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the bakery, you'd
>> be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm talking cake, not
>> cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the library and archives
>> masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, wouldn't this be a good
>> time to open a bakery?
>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

  Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY
>
 of
>>
>>> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots
>
 of
>>
>>> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your
>
 data
>>
>>> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem
>
 today
>>
>>> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that
>
 some
>>
>>> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in
>
 their
>>
>>> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply
>
 is
>>
>>> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!"
>
 So
>>
>>> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>
> kc
>
> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>
>  Also, this:
>>
>> "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public
>>
> domain.
>>
>>> Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be
>>
> subject
>>
>>> to
>> individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or
>>
> link
>>
>>> to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work
>>
> URIs)
>>
>>> can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included
>>
> in
>>
>>> any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data.

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

On 4/30/14, 9:19 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:

If libraries aren't willing to put in the the effort to make their own data
more useful and connected, then I don't think they are going do much of
anything useful very with "linked data cake" served on a silver platter.

Are you really suggesting that we cede linked data creation, management and
curation to vendors.
Gee, that's pretty sarcastic. No, I am suggesting that there is a needed 
service to help folks with textual data take that first step: adding the 
identifiers for those strings, like adding $0 fields to their MARC 
records. Perhaps you weren't around for the previous transitions, but 
such services jump-started both the conversion of cards to MARC and AACR 
to AACR2. You may not be aware but OCLC and other vendors provide 
conversion services of this nature on a continuing basis. It's much more 
efficient than having every library do the same coding for themselves. 
Oh, and remember that we share cataloging through copy cataloging 
services. There are lots of things that it just doesn't make sense to 
"do it yourself."


kc




Chad

On Apr 30, 2014 10:28 PM, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:

On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:

In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
Roy

Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same

leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized that
in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what we had
was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an impossible
task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be possible.

I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully

resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is not
as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can learn --
that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, John" with title
"Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's my book"). This is
what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a lot of this when
merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when determining what are
works, and when bringing authority entries together for VIAF. No, you don't
get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now with any of our services.

And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you

walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and show
you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake -- if you
could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the bakery, you'd
be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm talking cake, not
cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the library and archives
masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, wouldn't this be a good
time to open a bakery?

kc




On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:


Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY

of

URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots

of

URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your

data

store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem

today

is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that

some

folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in

their

catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply

is

not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!"

So

let's talk about how we make that connection.

kc

On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:


Also, this:

"OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public

domain.

Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be

subject

to
individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or

link

to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work

URIs)

can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included

in

any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."

http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html

Roy


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:

   To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is

no

difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN 
can
step you towards identifie

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 4/29/14 10:06 PM, Dan Scott wrote:

So as soon as you start mixing records that you've purchased
(presumably under a license that restricts redistribution) into an
otherwise open set of metadata, you're in a world of pain... because
typically systems are binary (either they make all of the
bibliographic metadata openly available, or none of it). Of course
this means that many sites are probably serving up these sorts of
records via SRU or Z39.50 when they really should not be. But it
certainly gives pause to sites that might otherwise package up
one-time or monthly dumps of all of their data.


To get around the licensing restrictions, an institution can create a 
dump of just locally created records and give them away.  Here's an 
example from the University of Michigan:


http://www.lib.umich.edu/library-information-technology/open-access-bibliographic-records-available-download-and-use

The trick, though, is remembering to update it periodically!

Kevin

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Chad Nelson]

If libraries aren't willing to put in the the effort to make their own data
more useful and connected, then I don't think they are going do much of
anything useful very with "linked data cake" served on a silver platter.

Are you really suggesting that we cede linked data creation, management and
curation to vendors.

Chad

On Apr 30, 2014 10:28 PM, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:
>
> On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>
>> In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
>> similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
>> Roy
>
> Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same
leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized that
in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what we had
was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an impossible
task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be possible.
>
> I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully
resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is not
as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can learn --
that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, John" with title
"Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's my book"). This is
what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a lot of this when
merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when determining what are
works, and when bringing authority entries together for VIAF. No, you don't
get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now with any of our services.
>
> And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you
walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and show
you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake -- if you
could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the bakery, you'd
be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm talking cake, not
cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the library and archives
masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, wouldn't this be a good
time to open a bakery?
>
> kc
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>
>>> Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY
of
>>> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots
of
>>> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your
data
>>> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem
today
>>> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that
some
>>> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in
their
>>> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
>>> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
>>> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
>>> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply
is
>>> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!"
So
>>> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>>
 Also, this:

 "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public
domain.
 Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be
subject
 to
 individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or
link
 to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work
URIs)
 can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included
in
 any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."

 http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html

 Roy


 On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
 richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:

   To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>
> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is
no
> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>
> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
> identify
> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>
> Tools such as xISBN 
> can
> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
> volume
> usage.
>
> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an
OCLC
> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of
this.
>
> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>
>   My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
>>
>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

On 4/30/14, 6:37 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:

In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
Roy
Roy, yes, that's what I'm assuming. I think we are indeed in the same 
leaky boat we were in in the 1970's when all of a sudden we realized 
that in the future we wanted our data to be "digital" but most of what 
we had was definitely analog. In the early days, we thought it was an 
impossible task to convert our cards to MARC, but it turned out to be 
possible.


I believe that linking our heading strings (the ones that hopefully 
resemble the "prefLabel" on someone's authority file) to identifiers is 
not as hard as people assume, especially if we have systems that can 
learn -- that is, that can build up cases of synonyms (e.g. "Smith, 
John" with title "Here's my book" == "Smith, John J." with title "Here's 
my book"). This is what the AACR->AACR2 services did. OCLC surely does a 
lot of this when merging manifestations, and undoubtedly did so when 
determining what are works, and when bringing authority entries together 
for VIAF. No, you don't get 100% perfection, but we don't get that now 
with any of our services.


And for all of those who keep suggesting Open Refine -- it's like you 
walk into bakery to buy a cake and they hand you flour, eggs, milk and 
show you where the oven is. Yes, it can be done. But you want the cake 
-- if you could do and wanted to *make* a cake you wouldn't be in the 
bakery, you'd be home in your kitchen. So in case it isn't clear, I'm 
talking cake, not cake making. How are we going to provide cake to the 
library and archives masses? And, if you are feeling entrepreneurial, 
wouldn't this be a good time to open a bakery?


kc




On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:


Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY of
URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots of
URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your data
store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem today
is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that some
folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in their
catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply is
not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!" So
let's talk about how we make that connection.

kc

On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:


Also, this:

"OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public domain.
Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be subject
to
individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or link
to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work URIs)
can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included in
any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."

http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html

Roy


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:

  To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN 
can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:

  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a

bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 

wrote:

  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once

and
for
all:

ALL THE THIN

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Chad Nelson]

Karen,

There are tools out there, like the OpenRefine[1], and specifically the
Reconciliation Service API's [2] which can be built to interact with it,
which are meant to help solve this problem. For instance, the there is a
third-party VIAF Reconciliation service [3] built on top of the VIAF API
which will take a plain text name of a person and try to find a VIAF URI
for it. There are a lot of ways that Reconciliation Service could be
improved,and creating an in-house version that really leverages the data in
VIAF to work with OpenRefine's methods could be a fantastic example of how
a data provider like OCLC can meet owners of legacy data more than
half-way. Just making the data (and and API) available was already half-way
because it allowed the community to innovate with it. If they can take the
next step, FANTASTIC, but if they don't I'm not holding it against them.

Best,
Chad

1 - http://openrefine.org/
2 - https://github.com/OpenRefine/OpenRefine/wiki/Reconciliation-Service-API
3-
http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2013/04/reconciling-author-names-using-open.html


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY of
> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots of
> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your data
> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem today
> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that some
> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in their
> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply is
> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!" So
> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>
>> Also, this:
>>
>> "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public domain.
>> Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be subject
>> to
>> individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or link
>> to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work URIs)
>> can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included in
>> any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."
>>
>> http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
>> richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>
>>  To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>
>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>
>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>> identify
>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>
>>> Tools such as xISBN 
>>> can
>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>> volume
>>> usage.
>>>
>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>>
>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>>
>>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
 bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
 it.
 Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
 cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

 and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
 a) is an OCLC member institution
 b) is not

 Thanks,
 kc




 On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
> wrote:
>
>  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>>
>>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>>
>>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>>
>>>  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once
>> and
>> for
>> all:
>>
>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>
>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to
>> put
>> the
>> past in the past.
>>
>>  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>
>   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 m

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Roy Tennant]

Richard covered the options pretty well from our perspective. That is, if
you have an OCLC number in hand you are in really good shape, and can use
software to make appropriate linkages. If you don't have an OCLC number,
then it is (as I have experienced myself) pretty much a world of hurt.

You *might* be able to use xISBN to find one an OCLC number to try, but of
course that's only good for a part of the collections of many libraries. If
you are doing a title/author search, then lord help you. I don't know how
you could make appropriate decisions on which item to use from a software
perspective. Take the first hit? You could see how that works.

In the end there may need to be reconciliation services just like we had
similar services in the card-catalog-to-digital years.
Roy


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY of
> URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are lots of
> URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump into your data
> store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the big problem today
> is that of populating legacy data with useful identifiers. I know that some
> folks have worked at making connections between subject headings in their
> catalog and the URIs available through id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it
> turns out to be fairly frustrating. It seems to be that the solution to
> this is that providers of URIs and users of URIs have to both make an
> effort to meet half-way, or at a mutally convenient location. It simply is
> not enough to say: "Hey, look! I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!" So
> let's talk about how we make that connection.
>
> kc
>
> On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>
>> Also, this:
>>
>> "OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public domain.
>> Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be subject
>> to
>> individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or link
>> to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work URIs)
>> can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included in
>> any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."
>>
>> http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
>> richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>
>>  To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>
>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>
>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>> identify
>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>
>>> Tools such as xISBN 
>>> can
>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>> volume
>>> usage.
>>>
>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>>
>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>>
>>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
 bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
 it.
 Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
 cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

 and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
 a) is an OCLC member institution
 b) is not

 Thanks,
 kc




 On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
> wrote:
>
>  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>>
>>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>>
>>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>>
>>>  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once
>> and
>> for
>> all:
>>
>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>
>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to
>> put
>> the
>> past in the past.
>>
>>  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>
>   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
>
 linked
>>>
 open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
>> data
>> world, then no one is paying attention.
>> Roy
>>
>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
>> [2]
>> htt

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

Roy, the question that I have is, as I say below, about DISCOVERABILITY 
of URIs, not intellectual property issues. It's great that there are 
lots of URIs for useful things out in the world, but they don't jump 
into your data store on their own through some kind of magic. To me, the 
big problem today is that of populating legacy data with useful 
identifiers. I know that some folks have worked at making connections 
between subject headings in their catalog and the URIs available through 
id.loc.gov - and as I recall, it turns out to be fairly frustrating. It 
seems to be that the solution to this is that providers of URIs and 
users of URIs have to both make an effort to meet half-way, or at a 
mutally convenient location. It simply is not enough to say: "Hey, look! 
I've got all of these URIs. Good luck!" So let's talk about how we make 
that connection.


kc

On 4/30/14, 1:17 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:

Also, this:

"OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public domain.
Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be subject to
individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or link
to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work URIs)
can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included in
any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."

http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html

Roy


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:


To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN  can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:


My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
wrote:


This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html


Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and
for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
the
past in the past.


That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

  Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as

linked

open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811


Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
licensing/questions.en.html


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet




--
Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005

Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Skype: richard.wallis1
Twitter: @rjw



--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Roy Tennant]

Also, this:

"OCLC identifiers, and Linked Data URIs, are always in the public domain.
Independent of the data and/or information content (which may be subject to
individual licensing terms open or otherwise) that they identify, or link
to, OCLC identifiers (e.g. OCLC Numbers, VIAF IDs, or WorldCat Work URIs)
can be treated as if they are in the public domain and can be included in
any data exposure mechanism or activity as public domain data."

http://www.oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html

Roy


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wal...@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>
> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>
> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>
> Tools such as xISBN  can
> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low volume
> usage.
>
> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>
> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>
> > My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
> > bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
> > Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
> > cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
> >
> > and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
> > a) is an OCLC member institution
> > b) is not
> >
> > Thanks,
> > kc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>  concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>  about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
> 
>  [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
> 
> >>> Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and
> >>> for
> >>> all:
> >>>
> >>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
> >>>
> >>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
> >>> the
> >>> past in the past.
> >>>
> >> That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
> >> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
> >>
> >>  Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
> linked
> >>> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
> >>> data
> >>> world, then no one is paying attention.
> >>> Roy
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
> >>> [2]
> >>> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
> >>> nuggets-of-linked-data/
> >>> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
> >>>
> >> Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
> >> open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
> >> of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
> >> yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
> >> Works page) :)
> >>
> >> A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
> >> B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
> >> licensing/questions.en.html
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005
>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Skype: richard.wallis1
> Twitter: @rjw
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[danielle plumer]

Jonathan,

Different communities have different benefits.


   1. Library catalogers, at least, seem sold on the idea of using URIs if
   they can then populate the display value of fields with strings. I've been
   giving them this scenario for about 4 years now, and they're sold. This
   would simplify the tasks of cleaning up old metadata records and updating
   subject headings, etc. The question is how to accomplish this given the
   constraints of existing systems and content standards. Maintain two
   systems, one for input and one for display, pushing data from one to the
   other with a export --> normalize --> import routine? Not viable for most
   institutions. So, near-term in theory, pie-in-the-sky in reality.
   2. The benefits to metadata aggregators seem obvious; if the aggregators
   can access the linked data form of the records, it greatly simplifies data
   pre-processing. Near-term in theory, but only if enough individual
   institutions participate. I have no idea where the tipping point on that
   would be. But see #1 for the problem of getting the linked data.
   3. The benefits to researchers are longer-term and less defined in my
   mind. Improved ability to explore data aggregations is the primary one I
   can think of.
   4. The benefits to other users are the ones that seem most nebulous. I
   don't even have data on whether people use Semantic Web-enabled tools like
   Google's Knowledge Graph or how much value they perceive in rich snippets.
   Google apparently thinks there's value, because apparently they spend a lot
   of time adding schema.org markup to their index to enable snippets (
   
http://searchengineland.com/schema-markup-shows-36-google-search-results-almost-websites-use-study-189707
   ).


Danielle

-- 

Danielle Cunniff Plumer
dcplumer associates
danie...@dcplumer.com


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:

> If you want libraries to spend money on adding URI's to their data, there
> is going to need to be some clear benefit they get from doing it -- and it
> needs to be a pretty near-term benefit, not "Well, some day all these
> awesome things might happen, because linked data."
>
>
>
> On 4/30/14 1:34 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions
>> that I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of
>> URIs -- "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these
>> questions usually come from library or archive projects with little or
>> no programming staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that
>> question so that people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that
>> the most pressing need right now is an easy way (or one that someone
>> else can do for you at a reasonable cost) to connect the text string
>> "identifiers" that we have to URIs. I envision something like what we
>> went through when we moved from AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and
>> libraries were able to send their MARC records to a service that
>> returned the records with the new name form. In this case, though, such
>> a service would return the data with the appropriate URIs added. (In the
>> case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)
>>
>> It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
>> resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just
>> beyond the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to
>> make this easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential
>> for an enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for
>> libraries and archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in
>> x or y format and we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great,
>> but I think it would be reasonable to charge for such a service.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>
>>> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>>
>>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>>
>>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
>>> identify
>>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>>
>>> Tools such as xISBN 
>>> can
>>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>>> volume
>>> usage.
>>>
>>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>>
>>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>>
>>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
 bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
 it.
 Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I m

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

Obviously openRefine will be used in many applications, but you've got 
to get your data TO openrefine, and you've got to do some programming to 
do that, and then to return the data to however you store it. OpenRefine 
is a great tool, but not a complete solution, IMO.


kc

On 4/30/14, 10:47 AM, Simon Brown wrote:

What about OpenRefine?


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:


Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions that
I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of URIs --
"How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these questions
usually come from library or archive projects with little or no programming
staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that question so that
people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that the most pressing
need right now is an easy way (or one that someone else can do for you at a
reasonable cost) to connect the text string "identifiers" that we have to
URIs. I envision something like what we went through when we moved from
AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and libraries were able to send their
MARC records to a service that returned the records with the new name form.
In this case, though, such a service would return the data with the
appropriate URIs added. (In the case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)

It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just beyond
the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to make this
easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential for an
enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for libraries and
archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in x or y format and
we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great, but I think it would be
reasonable to charge for such a service.

kc


On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:


To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN 
can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:

  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a

bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 

wrote:

  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once

and
for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
the
past in the past.

  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the

recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
linked


open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811

  Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to

open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
licensing/questions.en.html

  --

Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet






--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

Jonathan, I think we can point to some interesting benefits. If you take 
a look at what the BBC has done with their Wildlife site [1] and then 
look at the new FAO catalog [2] you can see how a page can be enhanced 
with useful data based on URIs in the bibliographic records. Imagine 
being able to add the short author bio from Wikipedia to a record 
display. etc. etc. [3] Or linking from a person as subject to the New 
York times data page for that person. [4]


Now, I know that your reply will be: but only if the vendors do it. 
Well, godammnit, we sure as hell can't wait for them - they are 
followers, not leaders. (And maybe this will give a boost to OS catalogs 
that don't have to wait for the unwieldy barge of library systems to 
make its change of direction.)


Note also that linked data is already happening in libraries in Europe, 
and the entire Europeana and DPLA are being developed as LD databases. 
This isn't some far out future nuttiness. We're actually running behind.


kc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/BBC/
[2] Info: http://aims.fao.org/agris; search interface: 
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/index.do

[3] try this out in: https://apps.facebook.com/WorldCat/
[4] http://data.nytimes.com/N20483401082089183163 (R. Nixon) which links 
to page with a huge list of articles 
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/richard_milhous_nixon/index.html


On 4/30/14, 11:13 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
If you want libraries to spend money on adding URI's to their data, 
there is going to need to be some clear benefit they get from doing it 
-- and it needs to be a pretty near-term benefit, not "Well, some day 
all these awesome things might happen, because linked data."



On 4/30/14 1:34 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions
that I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of
URIs -- "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these
questions usually come from library or archive projects with little or
no programming staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that
question so that people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that
the most pressing need right now is an easy way (or one that someone
else can do for you at a reasonable cost) to connect the text string
"identifiers" that we have to URIs. I envision something like what we
went through when we moved from AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and
libraries were able to send their MARC records to a service that
returned the records with the new name form. In this case, though, such
a service would return the data with the appropriate URIs added. (In the
case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)

It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just
beyond the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to
make this easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential
for an enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for
libraries and archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in
x or y format and we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great,
but I think it would be reasonable to charge for such a service.

kc


On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:

To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN 
can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an 
OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of 
this.


Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:


My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in 
some

cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
wrote:


This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest 
once and

for
all:

ALL

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Jonathan Rochkind]

If you want libraries to spend money on adding URI's to their data, 
there is going to need to be some clear benefit they get from doing it 
-- and it needs to be a pretty near-term benefit, not "Well, some day 
all these awesome things might happen, because linked data."



On 4/30/14 1:34 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions
that I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of
URIs -- "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these
questions usually come from library or archive projects with little or
no programming staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that
question so that people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that
the most pressing need right now is an easy way (or one that someone
else can do for you at a reasonable cost) to connect the text string
"identifiers" that we have to URIs. I envision something like what we
went through when we moved from AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and
libraries were able to send their MARC records to a service that
returned the records with the new name form. In this case, though, such
a service would return the data with the appropriate URIs added. (In the
case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)

It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just
beyond the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to
make this easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential
for an enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for
libraries and archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in
x or y format and we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great,
but I think it would be reasonable to charge for such a service.

kc


On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:

To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to
identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN 
can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:


My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to
it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
wrote:


This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html


Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and
for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to
put
the
past in the past.


That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

  Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
linked

open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811


Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
licensing/questions.en.html


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[danielle plumer]

This came up at the CONTENTdm Birds of a Feather lunch after the Texas
Conference on Digital Libraries yesterday. One of my suggestions was to
develop an extension to OpenRefine that would take a URI and return the
correct string value. Alternatively, an Excel VBA macro could be done to do
something similar within a spreadsheet.

Both of these, of course, would require an API that would provide a string
value when presented with a URI. Is there such an API for VIAF and FAST?
Other sources?

Danielle


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions that
> I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of URIs --
> "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these questions
> usually come from library or archive projects with little or no programming
> staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that question so that
> people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that the most pressing
> need right now is an easy way (or one that someone else can do for you at a
> reasonable cost) to connect the text string "identifiers" that we have to
> URIs. I envision something like what we went through when we moved from
> AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and libraries were able to send their
> MARC records to a service that returned the records with the new name form.
> In this case, though, such a service would return the data with the
> appropriate URIs added. (In the case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)
>
> It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
> resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just beyond
> the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to make this
> easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential for an
> enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for libraries and
> archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in x or y format and
> we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great, but I think it would be
> reasonable to charge for such a service.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>
>> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>
>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>
>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>
>> Tools such as xISBN 
>> can
>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>> volume
>> usage.
>>
>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>
>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>
>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
>>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
>>> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
>>> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>>>
>>> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
>>> a) is an OCLC member institution
>>> b) is not
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
 wrote:

  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>
>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>
>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>
>>  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once
> and
> for
> all:
>
> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>
> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
> the
> past in the past.
>
>  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
 recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
 linked

> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
> data
> world, then no one is paying attention.
> Roy
>
> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
> [2]
> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
> nuggets-of-linked-data/
> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>
>  Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
 open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
 of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not lo

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Simon Brown]

What about OpenRefine?


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions that
> I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of URIs --
> "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these questions
> usually come from library or archive projects with little or no programming
> staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that question so that
> people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that the most pressing
> need right now is an easy way (or one that someone else can do for you at a
> reasonable cost) to connect the text string "identifiers" that we have to
> URIs. I envision something like what we went through when we moved from
> AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and libraries were able to send their
> MARC records to a service that returned the records with the new name form.
> In this case, though, such a service would return the data with the
> appropriate URIs added. (In the case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)
>
> It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for
> resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just beyond
> the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to make this
> easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential for an
> enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for libraries and
> archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in x or y format and
> we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great, but I think it would be
> reasonable to charge for such a service.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>
>> To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.
>>
>> As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
>> difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.
>>
>> Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
>> the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
>> http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.
>>
>> Tools such as xISBN 
>> can
>> step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low
>> volume
>> usage.
>>
>> Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
>> Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.
>>
>> Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>> On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:
>>
>>  My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
>>> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
>>> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
>>> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>>>
>>> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
>>> a) is an OCLC member institution
>>> b) is not
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
 wrote:

  This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>
>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>
>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>>
>>  Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once
> and
> for
> all:
>
> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>
> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
> the
> past in the past.
>
>  That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
 recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

   Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as
 linked

> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
> data
> world, then no one is paying attention.
> Roy
>
> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
> [2]
> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
> nuggets-of-linked-data/
> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>
>  Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
 open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
 of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
 yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
 Works page) :)

 A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
 B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
 licensing/questions.en.html

  --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] getting URIs, was: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

Thanks, Richard. I ask because it's one of the most common questions 
that I get -- often about WorldCat, but in general about any source of 
URIs -- "How do I connect my data (text forms) to their URIs?" And these 
questions usually come from library or archive projects with little or 
no programming staff. So it seems like we need to be able to answer that 
question so that people can get linked up. In fact, it seems to me that 
the most pressing need right now is an easy way (or one that someone 
else can do for you at a reasonable cost) to connect the text string 
"identifiers" that we have to URIs. I envision something like what we 
went through when we moved from AACR name forms to AACR2 name forms, and 
libraries were able to send their MARC records to a service that 
returned the records with the new name form. In this case, though, such 
a service would return the data with the appropriate URIs added. (In the 
case of MARC, in the $0 subfield.)


It's great that the "big guys" like LC and OCLC are providing URIs for 
resources. But at the moment I feel like it's grapes dangling just 
beyond the reach of the folks we want to connect to. Any ideas on how to 
make this easy are welcome. And I do think that there's great potential 
for an enterprising start-up to provide an affordable service for 
libraries and archives. Of course, an open source "pass in your data in 
x or y format and we'll return it with URIs embedded" would be great, 
but I think it would be reasonable to charge for such a service.


kc


On 4/30/14, 9:59 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:

To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN  can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:


My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.

and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc




On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
wrote:


This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation

concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html


Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and
for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
the
past in the past.


That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

  Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked

open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811


Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
licensing/questions.en.html


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet






--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Richard Wallis]

To unpack the several questions lurking in Karen’s question.

As to being able to use the WorldCat Works data/identifiers there is no
difference between a or b - it is ODC-BY licensed data.

Getting a Work URI may be easier for a) as they should be able to identify
the OCLC Number and hence use the linked data from it’s URI <
http://worldcat.org/oclc/{ocn}> to pick up the link to it’s work.

Tools such as xISBN  can
step you towards identifier lookups and are openly available for low volume
usage.

Citation lookup is more a bib lookup feature, that you could get an OCLC
Number from. One of colleagues may be helpful on the particulars of this.

Apologies for being WorldCat specific, but Karen did ask.

~Richard.


On 30 April 2014 17:15, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a
> bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to it.
> Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in some
> cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.
>
> and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
> a) is an OCLC member institution
> b) is not
>
> Thanks,
> kc
>
>
>
>
> On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
 concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
 about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

 [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

>>> Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and
>>> for
>>> all:
>>>
>>> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>>>
>>> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put
>>> the
>>> past in the past.
>>>
>> That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
>> recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)
>>
>>  Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked
>>> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked
>>> data
>>> world, then no one is paying attention.
>>> Roy
>>>
>>> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
>>> [2]
>>> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-
>>> nuggets-of-linked-data/
>>> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811
>>>
>> Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
>> open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
>> of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
>> yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
>> Works page) :)
>>
>> A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
>> B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-
>> licensing/questions.en.html
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>



-- 
Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005

Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Skype: richard.wallis1
Twitter: @rjw

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Karen Coyle]

My question has to do with discoverability. Let's say that I have a 
bibliographic database and I want to add the OCLC work identifiers to 
it. Obviously I don't want to do it by hand. I might have ISBNs, but in 
some cases I will have a regular author/title-type citation.


and let's say that I am asking this for two different institutions:
a) is an OCLC member institution
b) is not

Thanks,
kc



On 4/30/14, 8:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant  wrote:

This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

[3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put the
past in the past.

That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)


Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked
open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811

Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. 
http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-licensing/questions.en.html


--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Dan Scott]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant  wrote:
>> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>
>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>
> Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and for
> all:
>
> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>
> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put the
> past in the past.

That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

> Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked
> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked data
> world, then no one is paying attention.
> Roy
>
> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
> [2]
> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-nuggets-of-linked-data/
> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811

Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. 
http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-licensing/questions.en.html

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Kyle Banerjee]

Lack of demand, particularly since many catalogs contain a lot of garbage 
metadata and/or resources that others cannot access. Plus, the information goes 
stale quickly. Not that there's no use for this information, but not that many 
people are asking.

Also, despite declarations to wanting to make info open, library organizations 
are much better at giving away other peoples' information than their own. A 
huge percentage of librarians work at public expense, but if you do anything 
for ALA or a number of other library outfits, copyright notices and other 
restrictions competitive with the publishers we love to whine about get slapped 
on mighty fast. 

Kyle


> On Apr 29, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Laura Krier  wrote:
> 
> Hi Code4Libbers,
> 
> I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
> you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
> metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
> political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
> about it.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your feedback! You can send it to me privately if
> you'd prefer.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -- 
> Laura Krier
> 
> laurapants.com

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Owen Stephens]

Hi Laura,

I've done some work on this in the UK[1][2] and there have been a number of 
associated projects looking at the open release of library, archive and museum 
metadata[3].

For libraries (it is different of archives and museums) I think I'd sum up the 
reasons in three ways - in order of how commonly I think they apply

a. Ignorance/lack of thought - libraries don't tend to licence their metadata, 
and often make no statement about how it can be used - my experience is that 
often no-one has even asked the questions about licencing/data release
b. No business case - in the UK we talked to a group of university librarians 
and found that they didn't see a compelling business case for making open data 
releases of their catalogue records
c. Concern about breaking contractual agreements or impinging on 3rd party 
copyright over records. The Comet project at the University of Cambridge did a 
lot of work in this area[4]

As Roy notes, there have been some significant changes recently with OCLC and 
many national libraries releasing data under open licences. However, while this 
changes (c) it doesn't impact so much on (a) and (b) - so these remain as 
fundamental issues and I have a (unsubstantiated) concern that big data 
releases lead to libraries taking less interest ("someone else is doing this 
for us") rather than taking advantage of the clarity and openess these big data 
releases and associated announcements bring.

A final point - looking at libraries behaviour in relation to 
institutional/open access repositories, where you'd expect at least (a) to be 
considered, unfortunately when I looked a couple of years ago I found similar 
issues. Working for the CORE project at the Open University[5] I found that 
OpenDOAR[6] listed "Metadata re-use policy explicitly undefined" for 57 out of 
125 UK repositories with OAI-PMH services. Only 18 repositories were listed as 
permitting commerical re-use of metadata. Hopefully this has improved in the 
intervening 2 years!

Hope some of this is helpful

Owen

1 Jisc Guide to Open Bibliographic Data http://obd.jisc.ac.uk
2 Jisc Discovery principles http://discovery.ac.uk/businesscase/principles/
3 Jisc Discovery Case studies http://guidance.discovery.ac.uk
4 COMET  http://cul-comet.blogspot.co.uk/p/ownership-of-marc-21-records.html
5 CORE blog http://core-project.kmi.open.ac.uk/node/32
6 OpenDOAR http://www.opendoar.org/

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: o...@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 29 Apr 2014, at 21:06, Ben Companjen  wrote:

> Hi Laura,
> 
> Here are some reasons I may have overheard.
> 
> Stuck halfway: "We have an OAI-PMH endpoint, so we're open, right?"
> 
> Lack of funding for sorting out our own rights: "We gathered metadata from
> various sources and integrated the result - we even call ourselves Open
> L*y - but we [don't have manpower to figure out what we can do with
> it, so we added a disclaimer]."
> 
> Cultural: "We're not sure how to prevent losing the records' provenance
> after we released our metadata."
> 
> 
> Groeten van Ben
> 
> On 29-04-14 19:02, "Laura Krier"  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Code4Libbers,
>> 
>> I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
>> you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
>> metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
>> political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
>> about it.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback! You can send it to me privately if
>> you'd prefer.
>> 
>> Laura
>> 
>> -- 
>> Laura Krier
>> 
>> laurapants.com> l&utm_campaign=email>

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Roy Tennant]

> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>
> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and for
all:

ALL THE THINGS. ALL.

At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put the
past in the past.

Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked
open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked data
world, then no one is paying attention.
Roy

[1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
[2]
http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-nuggets-of-linked-data/
[3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Dan Scott]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Laura Krier  wrote:
> Hi Code4Libbers,
>
> I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
> you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
> metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
> political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
> about it.

In the field (hah) of MARC records, some vendors charge for MARC as a
value-add on top of the electronic resources they provide. Here's one
I could think of off the top of my head:
http://gdc.gale.com/products/eighteenth-century-collections-online/acquire/marc-records/

So as soon as you start mixing records that you've purchased
(presumably under a license that restricts redistribution) into an
otherwise open set of metadata, you're in a world of pain... because
typically systems are binary (either they make all of the
bibliographic metadata openly available, or none of it). Of course
this means that many sites are probably serving up these sorts of
records via SRU or Z39.50 when they really should not be. But it
certainly gives pause to sites that might otherwise package up
one-time or monthly dumps of all of their data.

I suspect there are also lingering effects of OCLC's aborted attempt
to place restrictions on the transfer of records from WorldCat back in
2008 [1, 2]. This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.

1. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20130925190859/http://blog.reeset.net/archives/574
2. 
https://coffeecode.net/archives/174-Archive-of-OCLC-WorldCat-Policy-as-posted-2008-11-02.html
3. http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html

Dan

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Stuart Yeates]

On 04/30/2014 09:38 AM, David Friggens wrote:

Hi Laura


I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
metadata openly.


One issue is that we pay for enrichments (tables of contents etc) for
records, and I believe the licence restricts us from giving them to
other people. We send our records to the national union catalogue and
OCLC before adding the enrichments, and we'd need to take them out
before we could "release" records elsewhere.


Note that this is primarily a problem because MARC assumes that all 
versioning is done at the record level; there's no easy way to say "the 
core bib item is from X, the TOC is from Y and the cover image is from Z".


cheers
stuart

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[David Friggens]

Hi Laura

> I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
> you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
> metadata openly.

One issue is that we pay for enrichments (tables of contents etc) for
records, and I believe the licence restricts us from giving them to
other people. We send our records to the national union catalogue and
OCLC before adding the enrichments, and we'd need to take them out
before we could "release" records elsewhere.

Cheers
David

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Ben Companjen]

Hi Laura,

Here are some reasons I may have overheard.

Stuck halfway: "We have an OAI-PMH endpoint, so we're open, right?"

Lack of funding for sorting out our own rights: "We gathered metadata from
various sources and integrated the result - we even call ourselves Open
L*y - but we [don't have manpower to figure out what we can do with
it, so we added a disclaimer]."

Cultural: "We're not sure how to prevent losing the records' provenance
after we released our metadata."


Groeten van Ben

On 29-04-14 19:02, "Laura Krier"  wrote:

>Hi Code4Libbers,
>
>I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
>you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
>metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
>political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
>about it.
>
>Thanks in advance for your feedback! You can send it to me privately if
>you'd prefer.
>
>Laura
>
>-- 
>Laura Krier
>
>laurapants.coml&utm_campaign=email>

Re: [CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Laura Krier  wrote:
> I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
> you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
> metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
> political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
> about it.

Here's one technical barrier: there are some ILSs that don't respond
well to web crawlers; in particular, although GoogleBot tends to crawl
at a reasonable rate, there are other badly behaved ones (AhrefsBot,
I'm looking at you!) that can effectively perform a denial-of-service
attack on a library catalog.

Of course, there are a number of ways to mitigate such issues and
allow crawling,  However, given the choice between allowing crawlers
(for purposes that don't necessary have immediate benefit to the
library) and maintaining uptime for the human users, often the
convenient decision is to block the bots.

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Manager of Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  g...@esilibrary.com
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org

[CODE4LIB] barriers to open metadata?

[Laura Krier]

Hi Code4Libbers,

I'd like to find out from as many people as are interested what barriers
you feel exist right now to you releasing your library's bibliographic
metadata openly. I'm curious about all kinds of barriers: technical,
political, financial, cultural. Even if it seems obvious, I'd like to hear
about it.

Thanks in advance for your feedback! You can send it to me privately if
you'd prefer.

Laura

-- 
Laura Krier

laurapants.com