[open-bibliography] List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data

Wed Jan 16 16:46:49 UTC 2013

Antoine,

I apologize for my frustration. What you and others have done with LLD and
Europeana is incredible. It is unfortunate that the resources aren't there
to be invested, that's partly the fault of us as the public. And I should
add that the EU has demonstrated a stronger commitment to these issues than
our US counterparts/organizations, at the least monetarily and to this
point in time.

Dan Brickley (Google/schema.org) has said previously (I'll have to find the
reference) that Google is very interested in moving forward with libraries
on metadata/semantic web solutions but hasn't received much invested
interest in collaborating on such topics. I don't know, but maybe he was
referring to OCLC, LOC, and others. I'm primarily concerned with making
sure the web ontologists, et al, and librarians continue to merge efforts
so as to avoid parallel solutions that don't crosswalk. Though, again, I
should mention my experience in the standards process is not as deep as
your own or on par with someone like Karen Coyle either. ;-)

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>  The lack of support from W3C
>> and Dublin Core isn't doing us any favors either, though the Library
>> Linked
>> Data Incubator was helpful.
>>
>
>
> I should understand the last bit as kind words, I hope :-)
>
> I'd be curious to hear in which way W3C and DCMI has "opted out", as was
> said. Is it really about lack of moral support? These organizations,
> prestigious and useful be they, don't have a lot of resources. The LLD
> incubator existed because we could share the organization load among three
> chairs, and then could rely on extraordinary skills and commitment from the
> members... W3C was extremely supportive from the start, but they just can't
> commit the resources for all the needed groundwork for every community
> group.
>
> A similar phenomenon applies for us in Europeana (I hear we've been named
> yesterday ;-) ). We're certainly interested in this kind of activity, and
> will try to follow that new NISO one. But our resources are also limited.
> And we can't commit what I've done for the LLD incubator, every year. We've
> got other business; and libraries are just one of the communities we aim at
> serving--besides, it's tough one to engage as they are many, smart and like
> having good discussions ;-). So, yes, at some moments at least, we'll
> probably be part of the "it's-a-great-idea-can-**
> someone-else-take-the-lead-**please" crowd Karen has refered to.
>  Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.**org <open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-bibliography<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography>
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-bibliography<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography>
>

-- 
Tod Robbins
Digital Collections Librarian, MLIS
todrobbins.com | @todrobbins <http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20130116/5d9e6735/attachment-0001.html>