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 <AANLkTikmWHM8pRC1Im_WjeDIkQMucVVrU8UeW_97Hf61-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>, Lars Heuer <[email protected]> writes >Hi Richard, > >[...] >> Surely Open Library is totally about "sharing their findings"?: it's a free >> (unlike LibraryThing) wiki-supporting framework with API etc. > >Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of it. > >If I understood it correctly, OpenLibrary does not use MARC or any >other library format at all, right? The users have to resubmit all >data and they ignore other standards (ignore == they do not convert >MARC records to RDF for example)? As I understand it, most of OL's material arrived in MARC format: "Much of the information contained herein was created by library professionals, often in the form of cataloging records in MARC format."[1] They are currently working to express the information they have using FRBR[2], and at least some of this data is now available as RDF[3 - mine!]. (I would hesitate to call it Linked Data yet - where are the URLs? - but [1] indicates that this is clearly their intended direction of travel.) Their attempts, in particular, to re-express LCSH as a faceted classification, suggest to me that there is scope for using a Topic Maps approach to move their project forward. Richard [1] http://openlibrary.org/about/lib [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Re cords [3] http://openlibrary.org/works/OL2763056W.rdf -- Richard Light