[open-bibliography] Linked Data for Libraries (LD4L) project
adrian.pohl at okfn.org
Mon Feb 3 20:32:26 UTC 2014
Thank you all for your responses.
I had previously heard about Cornell's project to provide unified discovery
via a blacklight (open source) interface and wondered whether the LD4L
project would address the whole range of the data underlying discovery
tools or just the catalog metadata. I hoped that libraries would move one
step further with addressing free reuse/open licensing of metadata in
contract negotiations with content providers. (See also the openbiblio blog
post in reaction to the EBSCO and Ex Libris slap fight:
David, please let us know if there is any chance if the project might also
address this issue. Someone will have to make a start...
On 3 February 2014 20:50, David Weinberger <self at evident.com> wrote:
> Since the aim is to demonstrate library Linked Data's practical value for
> scholarly/educational communities, we'll do as much reconciliation/linking
> as we can, which will inevitably be less than we'd like.
> We're pretty much at Day #2 of this project. There will be more details as
> we work through the issues, preferably with the advice and help of the
> entire community, including you.
> David W.
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Ian Ibbotson <ian.ibbotson at k-int.com>wrote:
>> (apologies if I'm just re-posting info already seen)
>> I think @azaroth42 [twitter] might be a good man to ask for details on
>> this.. Some responses to the "and we're off" posting, asking about license
>> etc here:
>> ..Yes, we are aiming at public domain. The following is from page 3 of
>> the proposal:
>> “While Linked Data can be used internally within an institution or across
>> a collaborative group, it becomes much more valuable when it is Linked Open
>> Data, and is publicly shared using an open license such as the Creative
>> Commons CC-BY or CC0 licenses, or the United Kingdom’s Open
>> Government License. For our Linked Data for Libraries project, our
>> intention is that all SRSIS instances will share Linked Open Data with the
>> Dean Krafft adds: Since we’re publishing our own metadata, and we don’t
>> actually have a lot of metadata for journal articles, there won’t be a lot
>> of that in the mix. But what we do have should definitely be open.
>> Ian Ibbotson
>> Knowledge Integration Ltd
>> 35 Paradise Street, Sheffield. S3 8PZ
>> T: 0114 273 8271
>> M: 07968 794 630
>> W: http://www.k-int.com
>> On 3 February 2014 19:07, Tom Morris <tfmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Adrian. Does anyone have any information on what they're
>>> actually doing? Is this going to result in yet another mega dump of
>>> unreconciled/unlinked bibliographic RDF data or are they actually going to
>>> make an attempting at linking things in a useful fashion?
>>> Stanford was actually involved in a linked data experiment back in 2010
>>> when a good chunk of their catalog was loaded into Freebase and matched up
>>> with Freebase topics. You can see a list of the book editions here:
>>> If you look at an edition, you'll see that they're each linked back to
>>> the Stanford OPAC system. For example, these two editions:
>>> are linked both their original catalog entries and to this work:
>>> and the topic for the author Donn Byrne<https://www.freebase.com/m/02x79g1> which
>>> is further linked to Wikipedia, OpenLibrary, VIAF, IMDB, and LC NAF.
>>> That's all a long-winded way of saying that Stanford University Library
>>> has a pretty good start on producing Linked Data today.
>>> Cornell has some linked data for their OPAC too, although I don't think
>>> its as extensive as the Stanford data. I think it's mostly derived from
>>> the metadata associated with Google Books scans. If you look at this
>>> edition <https://www.freebase.com/m/04w0sxn> of Flatland<https://www.freebase.com/m/0j_mj> you
>>> can see that it's linked to both Cornell's OPAC as well as the LC and
>>> OpenLibrary records for that edition, while the work entry is linked to
>>> Wikipedia and ISFDB <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1933>. (It
>>> should be linked to the OpenLibrary work page too, but OpenLibrary didn't
>>> yet have works when the original Freebase linking was done, so that's a gap
>>> in the linkage.
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org>wrote:
>>>> The Mellon-funded Linked Data for Libraries (LD4L) project at Cornell,
>>>> Harvard and Stanford might bring things forward regarding the
>>>> availability of open bibliographic data on the web. See the recent
>>>> blog post on the project by David Weinberger.
>>>> In the December announcement of the project from Harvard it reads:
>>>> "Ultimately, the goal of the project is to create a system that pulls
>>>> information out of its existing silos—like library catalogs, finding
>>>> aids, reading lists and more—into a common format that people can use
>>>> to find and understand information. This new system would apply to
>>>> all scholarly and creative disciplines, including the sciences, the
>>>> arts and the humanities."
>>>> The question is whether the project's goal is linked _open_ data, i.e.
>>>> publishing large amounts of bibliographic data for journal articles
>>>> etc. under an open license. Or whether the goal is to have the data on
>>>> the web as linked data but without open licensing...
>>>> Can anybody on this list provide some more information on this project
>>>> regarding openbiblio data?
>>>> - Adrian
>>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography
>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-bibliography