Three Linked Data choices for Libraries

Three Linked Data choices for Libraries

• 1.
  Richard Wallis Evangelist andFounder Data Liberate [email protected] @rjw European BIBFRAME Workshop September 19th 2018 Three Linked Data Choices for Libraries Beyond MARC
• 2.
  Independent Consultant, Evangelist& Founder Works With: • Google – Schema.org vocabulary, site, extensions, documentation and community • OCLC – Global library cooperative • FIBO – Financial Industry Business Ontology Group • Various Clients – Implementing/understanding Schema.org British Library — Stanford University — Europeana — NLB Singapore W3C Community Groups: • Schema Bib Extend (Chair) - Bibliographic data • Schema Architypes (Chair) - Archives • Financial Industry Business Ontology – fibo.schema.org • Tourism Structured Web Data (Co-Chair) • Schema Course Extension • Schema IoT Community • Educational & Occupational Credentials in Schema.org [email protected] — @rjw 40+ Years – Computing 28+ Years – Cultural Heritage technology 13+ Years – Semantic Web & Linked Data
• 3.
  • Lots ofgreat individual linked data initiatives (interoperability between them a question) • Bibframe 2.0 – ready for wider standardized adoption • Schema.org – the de facto structured data standard for the web (30% domains using it) • Potential for adding web links to MARC (Linky MARC) Library Linked Data … where are we now?
• 4.
  Library Linked Data …what is the way forward? What do I need to implement? What do I ask my vendor for?
• 5.
  What are myLibrary Linked Data Options? BIBFRAME 2.0 Schema.org Linky MARC Do nothing Who Wants to be a Linked Data Library
• 6.
  BIBFRAME 2.0 • Maturedfrom 1.0 (and variations) • Not perfect but ‘good enough’ – continuing to develop • MARC Conversion specifications • Open source MARC Conversion software. • Good basis for standardized Linked Data (RDF) interchange • Backed by Library of Congress - Supported by others • Introduces potential for entity-based cataloguing
• 7.
  BIBFRAME 2.0 • ALibrary vocabulary/ontology/standard • Not recognized outside of library and associated organisations • No real use for increasing visibility & discoverability on the general web
• 8.
  • De factostructured web data standard vocabulary • Has bibliographic extension • Shared by embedding in normal page HTML (No special data endpoint required) • Already found in 30% of web • Requested by Google and others • Acknowledged by Google to influence indexing • Used to populate Search Engine Knowledge Graphs • Driving Semantic Search, Voice Search, Local Search, etc. • Not detailed/specific enough for library cataloguing, etc. Schema.org
• 9.
  • Adding httpURIs to $0 & $1 MARC subfields • Recommendation of the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC • Consistent approach to include links to entities such as people, organisations, etc. (authorities) • Not Linked Data – but a way to preserve identified entity URIs for the future Linky MARC
• 10.
  Do nothing • Waitfor system suppliers to catch up • Need to keep aware of developments
• 11.
  What are myLibrary Linked Data Options? BIBFRAME 2.0 Schema.org Linky MARC Do nothing Who Wants to be a Linked Data Library BIBFRAME 2.0 Schema.org .
• 12.
  BIBFRAME 2.0 Schema.org Linky MARC Whatare the Challenges? (for the technical community) • Consistent approach • Solve the entity duplication problem in a widely adoptable way • Concentrate on adoption and interchange • Get vendor buy-in • Acknowledge limitations for web discovery & discoverability • Reference mapping from Bibframe • Library implementation examples – sitemaps etc. • Encourage as an interim solution
• 13.
  bibframe2schema.org • Open project/ community • Launching now • To agree and promote: • Reference mapping from BIBFRAME 2.0 to Schema.org • Reference enrichment / conversion scripts • Interested ? Email / tweet me: [email protected] @rjw #bibframe2schema
• 14.
  Richard Wallis Evangelist andFounder Data Liberate [email protected] @rjw European BIBFRAME Workshop September 19th 2018 Three Linked Data Choices for Libraries Beyond MARC