Post on 25-May-2015
description
The Road Forwardbased on what we’ve learned from the one
we’ve been on
Diane Hillmann and Gordon DunsireNISO Bibliographic Roadmap meeting, April 15-16, 2013, Baltimore, MD, USA
Let’s start from here
FRBRer FRBRooISBD
BibOMARC 21
UNIMARC
RDA
DC
BIBFRAME?
Schema.org/bibex?
Bibliographic RDF element sets
Local
Similar things, different povs
o It’s the same bibliographic universe
o With common concepts found in most bibliographic schema/element sets
o Author, title, subject, format, etc.
o Plus specialized concepts for non-global use
o Musical key, parallel title, etc.
o Allowing semantic maps between particular schema elements/properties (ontologies)
m21:M338__b
rda:carrierTypeManifestation
rda:mediaTypeManifestation
dct:format
dc:format
unc:mediaType
isbd:P1003
schema:encodes
Carrier/format concept map (ontology)
Environment
o Many element sets and vocabularies
o Common concept maps are in process - more can be created, and viewed as part of a “contract”
o Don’t need complete “schema-to-schema” maps
o Concept-focused maps/ontologies are the consensus, not the schema boundary
o What’s the common minimal data that you need to provide to be part of a global service? What else is necessary for the description?
Design strategies
o Bottom up, not top down: the evidence of global consensus lies in the commonality of multiple local environments
o Top down requires agreement prior to evidence of usage
o Some approved elements never get used; MARC 21 has several examples
o The consensus may not lie at “the top”, i.e. the “dumbest” element
From local to global (data)o “Contract” specifies set of properties that data
must interoperate with
o Local data can interoperate via direct mapping, or via connection to any part of a concept-focused map
o Local data remains in original format for local applications
o Automatically dumbed-down for global services using maps
o “Think global, act local” = add mappings from local properties to global graphs
Role of Standards Organization
o Build on library community strengths in collaboration and trust
o Maintain “contract” for accepting data in global service(s)
o Consensus identification of component elements
o New candidate elements identified by local usage
o “Endorsement” mechanism brings new elements into contract
Local to global (development)
o Local development proceeds at own pace
o No need to wait for consensus approval
o Global endorsement necessarily and usefully lags behind local developments
o E.g. W3C/HTML5; schema.org
o “Tell us what to do”
o Do your own thing!
Beware of Zombie Issues
o Assumption of “records” as units of management
o Records can be inputs or outputs
o Round tripping
o It’s not about data “residence” in one schema or another—more of a “view”
o De-duplication—no more “master records”
o Data at the statement level is available for many kinds of aggregation
Provenance and Filtering
o “Who says?” is an essential question when evaluating statements
o Not all data statements are created equal, but trustworthiness is hard to determine without provenance
o Provenance info is the basis for data filtering
o No other technique works quite as well to determine quality
What’s Needed?
o Infinite namespaces, without encodings, sequences, hierarchies
o Support for innovation at every level
o Commitment to move forward (not back), and to learn the right lessons from experience
o Leadership from institutions and individuals