[openbiblio-dev] BibJSON vs RDF
tfmorris at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 21:03:29 UTC 2012
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> [bibliographic data from the German National Library] is available in RDF as CC0.
> Mark will have a look at at - maybe it's easy to convert to BibJSON - but
> anyway we should work with the suppliers to create BibJSON - this is a
> really clear example of why BJ is useful.
What is a really clear example? I missed a step or three in the argument here.
Is BibJSON being proposed as a replacement for RDF? An alternative to
RDF? What additional value does it provide that justifies this extra
People like Tim Berners-Lee, the W3C, Talis, etc have been pushing RDF
to libraries for *years* and are just barely beginning to get
traction, so you need to plan on a similarly long and expensive
crusade to do the same thing with BibJSON. It's one thing to use it
as the native format for the BibServer API. It's quite another to
propose it for global adoption in competition with the W3C.
More information about the openbiblio-dev