1 / 30

RDA FTW or WTF

RDA FTW or WTF. LITA LOD SIG ALA AC 2014. RDA. For The Win o r What The Fheck. Perspective. (Mine) ...and everything I say is arguable. A very brief history of bibliographic metadata standards. CHAOS …(passage of time)… AACR3 CHAOS (LOD) RDA Bibex (schema.org) BibFrame.

awena
Download Presentation

RDA FTW or WTF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RDA FTW or WTF LITA LOD SIG ALA AC 2014

  2. RDA For The Win or What The Fheck ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  3. Perspective (Mine) ...and everything I say is arguable ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  4. A very brief history of bibliographic metadata standards • CHAOS • …(passage of time)… • AACR3 • CHAOS (LOD) • RDA • Bibex (schema.org) • BibFrame ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  5. RDF vs. XML (yet again) • XMLish (bound) data is • Concrete, finite, closed, constrained by Schema • XML Schema, JSON Schema, RelaxNG, SQL, et al) • Good for creation, storage • RDF (unbound) data is • Flexible, infinite, open, constrained by Logic • Good for distribution, aggregation • VERY likely to be globally invalid (illogical) ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  6. A brief word or 3 about RDF • Data model assumes an ‘Open World’ • Any ‘body’ can ‘say’ any Thing about any Thing • Knowledge has no boundary • There is no ‘record’ • Every Thing that is ‘said’ is ‘true’ • Until it’s ‘inconsistent’ …because it’s all about POV ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  7. Anglo-American vs. (everyone else) • Software Developers are used to English everything • “That ship has sailed” -- Richard Wallis (English speaker) • Semantics aren’t consistent, even across English-speaking cultures • Semantics (meanings) matter in bib metadata ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  8. Anglo-American vs. (everyone else) • Cataloging by/for French (or Chinese) speakers may require different semantics • Global metadata, especially LOD, requires cross-cultural Linking • This requires cross-cultural mapping (not crosswalks) of often dissimilar semantics ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  9. MARC 21 vs. (everything else) • Both semantics and syntax • Semantics has centuries of accumulated value • Syntax is too limited for LOD • Syntax uses opaque identifiers • Doesn't play well with FRBR • Not even a little bit – doesn’t deal with abstractions ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  10. RDAData Model • RDA instructions are for people • Explicitly multilingual, multicultural • Intense, cross-cultural semantic commitment • Semantics and labels continuously adjusted for cross-cultural uniformity • Explicitly based on FRBR and DCAM • Wait... DCAM? ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  11. RDA RDF • 'Opaque' identifiers • http://rdaa:P50029 • No ontological commitment • Multicultural • Supports RDA's commitment to cross-cultural semantic alignment ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  12. RDA RDF • Lexical Aliases • http://rdaa:founder.en • Language-specific identifiers (URIs) • 'Readable' by humans in each language • Convey minimal semantics (Bad but whadareyagonnado?) • Always 'resolve', for the machines, to the canonical opaque identifier • ...and resolve historical aliases ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  13. RDA RDF • Unconstrained Properties • http://rdau:P60694 • Implies no membership in a set (class) of the Thing Being Described • Required for cross-domain mapping • see bf:Work, schema:CreativeWork, isbd:Resource • Supersets of the constrained properties ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  14. A brief word aboutSemantic Mapping vs. Crosswalks • Semantic mapping • Preserves original data context • Assigns meaning to the mapping relationship • This is what the Unconstrained facilitate • Crosswalk • 1:1 relationship – always ‘same as’ • Discards original data context ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  15. RDA & GIT • Uses git for versioning • Uses GitHub for • Distribution • https://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies • Documentation (GitHub pages) • http://www.rdaregistry.info/ • Issue tracking • https://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies/issues • Release tracking • https://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies/releases ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  16. rdaregistry.info & git • Nginx server • Hosts the data in ‘resolvable’ form • Content negotiation for all RDF ‘flavors’ • Gets updated from GitHub • ‘code’ pulled from GitHub Master branch • Always updated to match current release • Eventually able to request specific release ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  17. rdaregistry.info & the OMR • Open Metadata Registry • http://metadataregistry.org/schema/list.html?filters%5Bagent_id%5D=177&filter=filter • Editorial interface • Generates RDF • Uses API from http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ • Maintains a local git repository • Pushes results to GitHub ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  18. Soo… What’s the answer? (does FRBR matter?) At this point in our program Jon becomes a typical talking head… ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  19. BibFrame isn’t the ‘answer’ • Discards MARC 21 semantics • Redefines existing properties • Redefines frbr:work • ‘Borrows’ semantics from RDA without reference • Discards FRBR semantics • Unique approach to frbr:work • Proprietary approach to MARC 21 mapping ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  20. Schema.org bib extensions (Bibex) isn’t the ‘answer’ • Oriented toward global search engines • Redefines frbr:work • Hard (not impossible) to extend • Constrained by limitations of HTML-based container ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  21. Schema.org bib extensions (Bibex) isn't the 'answer’ • Hard to map • Hard to translate • What are the instructions? • ‘Unique’ approach to frbr:work • Proprietary approach to MARC 21 mapping ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  22. RDA isn’t the ‘answer’ • Lots of cruft from AACR2 and MARC 21 • Minimal community involvement in development of the data model • Strong commitment to FRBR ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  23. MARC21 isn’t the ‘answer’ • Semantics tied to syntax • Field:indicator:subfield ‘means’ some Thing • See http://marc21rdf.info • 11,078 Things can be said in current 0xx-7xx • Hard to extend • Can’t be globally extended without local pain ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  24. POV For decades we’ve shared a single POV: MARC LOD forces the consideration of multiple POV ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  25. So what’s the answer? ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  26. Harvest globally • MARC 21+RDA+BibFrame+Bibex+... • The global (open) web of data is full of: • Known knowns • Known unknowns • Unknown knowns • Unknown unknowns • We can exploit that… be flexible • The Robustness principle ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  27. Process Locally • Aggregate • To integrate and surface inconsistencies • ‘Validate’ • according to local knowledge • Map • To apply your knowledge to the unknown • Cherry-pick • To create variable ‘boundaries’ ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  28. Publish Globally • MARC 21+RDA+BibFrame+Bibex+… • With consistency and precision • Make your data ‘knowable’ • The Robustness principle ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  29. Controversy “… Where there is conflict, let me sow harmony, Where there is doubt, let me sow faith, Where there is despair, let me sow hope, Where there is darkness, let me sow light, …” ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

  30. Cheers! Aka Thanks! @jonphipps jphipps@madcreek.com http://managemetadata.com ALA Annual 2014 LITA/ALCTS LOD SIG

More Related