Re: Dynamic vs. Fixed World Views was Re: MARCXML to Topic Maps? MODS to Topic Maps?
Richard Light <richard-wLOraGfDqaUCqOQrDF6SL1pr/1R2p/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In message <AANLkTinLeISDrIeaN8QeiCIiAXxKJOqaVfkwisTL_lCu-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>, Alexander Johannesen <[email protected]> writes > >And, for what it is worth, both Open Library and especially >LibraryThing *do* this, and quite well. However, they are not part of >the library world, they are external players who might or might not >share their findings. Surely Open Library is totally about "sharing their findings"?: it's a free (unlike LibraryThing) wiki-supporting framework with API etc. Anyway, given that they aspire to provide a catalogue entry for every book published, surely they would count as "part of the library world" by most people's definition? And, given that they are actively trying to move in the direction of FRBR, Linked Data, etc., wouldn't they be a better dog to throw a Topic Maps steak to, than the MARC-using-librarian dog? Their current RDF offerings[1] show the MARC legacy (not many URLs in there), but they look a whole lot more helpful to me than equivalent MARCXML. Maybe because they are hungrier ... maybe because a Topic Map sitting alongside and adding value to a single, comprehensive online bibliographic resource could really benefit everyone. Perhaps LCSH (already available as Linked Data) would be a good place to start? Richard [1] http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M.rdf -- Richard Light