[open-bibliography] Updating distributed, federated, partially replicated bibliographic databases

[ianibbo at gmail.com]

Have to say I have a massive amount of sympathy with this point of
view. It does often worry me that projects like this have pushed back,
rather than advanced, the cause of openly sharing standardised
bibliographic info.

No easy solutions here, but certainly very interested to contribute to
anything that might emerge from this.

Ian.

On 13 September 2011 20:16, Tom Morris <tfmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Like the XKCD cartoon about standards (http://xkcd.com/927/), it's
> pretty clear that the pace of creation of new bibliographic databases
> and services isn't going to abate any time soon as people create new
> "one true unifying bibliographic database" instances.  Open Library,
> Wikipedia, national libraries, Freebase, OCLC, etc will all have one
> page per book, modulo duplicates, omissions, errors, and differences
> in focus.
>
> As people grab one-time database dumps and republish them,
> disconnected from their original source and without any provenance,
> the problem will be compounded.
>
> How do we move from a static set of dumps to a dynamic set of update
> streams that enable a vibrant ecosystem of cooperatively cataloged
> entities?  A centralized OCLC-based monopoly is one solution, but not
> a good one, in my opinion.
>
> Is anyone working on enabling such a set of federated catalogs?  Would
> anyone like to?
>
> Tom
>
> p.s. There's an earlier thread which touches on this topic here:
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/2010-May/000140.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>



-- 
Ian Ibbotson
W: http://ianibbo.me
E: ianibbo at gmail.com
skype: ianibbo
twitter: ianibbo