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 t
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, financia
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 hav
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 fro
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
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,
> poli
> 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 uncer
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 h
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 ma
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/2012/2012
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
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
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
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
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 *m
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
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 sudd
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
c
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
bibl
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 c
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
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 programm
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
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
somethin
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, Kar
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 t
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,
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 si
28 matches
Mail list logo
