Bibliographic Framework: RDF and Linked Data
Karen Coyle writes:
With the newly developed enthusiasm for RDF as the basis for library bibliographic data we are seeing a number of efforts to transform library data into this modern, web-friendly format. This is a positive development in many ways, but we need to be careful to make this transition cleanly without bringing along baggage from our past.
Recent efforts have focused on translating library record formats into RDF with the result that we now have:
ISBD in RDF
FRBR in RDF
RDA in RDFand will soon have
MODS in RDFIn addition there are various applications that convert MARC21 to RDF, although none is “official.” That is, none has been endorsed by an appropriate standards body.
Each of these efforts takes a single library standard and, using RDF as its underlying technology, creates a full metadata schema that defines each element of the standard in RDF. The result is that we now have a series of RDF silos, each defining data elements as if they belong uniquely to that standard. We have, for example, at least four different declarations of “place of publication”: in ISBD, RDA, FRBR and MODS, each with its own URI. There are some differences between them (e.g. RDA separates place of publication, manufacture, production while ISBD does not) but clearly they should descend from a common ancestor:
(emphasis added)
Karen makes a very convincing argument about RDF silos and libraries.
I am less certain about her prescription that libraries concentrate on creating data and build records for that data separately.
In part because there aren’t any systems where data exists separate from either an implied or explicit structure to access it. And those structures are just as much “data” as the “data” they enclose. We may not often think of it that way but shortcomings on our part don’t alter our data and the “data” that encloses it.