[openbiblio-dev] BibJSON vs RDF

Dan Brickley danbri at danbri.org
Tue Feb 7 22:36:59 UTC 2012

On 7 Feb 2012, at 22:03, Tom Morris <tfmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> expense?
> 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.

Of course one of the nice things about open data in machine-friendly form is that anyone can redistribute it in other formats downstream. I don't see any harm in BibJSON enthusiasts doing just that. Or MARC, Excel, ... anything else that there's an audience for.


> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev

More information about the openbiblio-dev mailing list