Search (112 results, page 2 of 6)

0.0033329446 = product of:
  0.033329446 = sum of:
    0.033329446 = weight(_text_:web in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329446 = score(doc=1999,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The article is an updated and expanded version of a paper presented to International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions in 2013. It describes recent work involving the representation of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and UNIMARC (UNIversal MARC) in Resource Description Framework (RDF), the basis of the Semantic Web and linked data. The UNIMARC Bibliographic format is used to illustrate issues arising from the development of a bibliographic element set and its semantic alignment with ISBD. The article discusses the use of such alignments in the automated processing of linked data for interoperability, using examples from ISBD, UNIMARC, and Resource Description and Access.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0033329446 = product of:
  0.033329446 = sum of:
    0.033329446 = weight(_text_:web in 2001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329446 = score(doc=2001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 2001, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2001)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Libraries are faced with an epochal transformation: the emergence of a new structure of the web, the Semantic Web. The data structure will change completely in the next few years, leading to profound changes in information organization and retrieval. In this article I compare International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and Regole italiane di catalogazione (REICAT), the new Italian cataloging rules, to see when confronted with this phenomenon, how ready they are to structure bibliographic data in new ways to support information retrieval.

0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 1904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=1904,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1904, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1904)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Libraries and museums developed rules for the description of their collections prior to formalizing the underlying conceptualization reflected in such rules. That formalizing process took place in the 1990s and resulted in two independent conceptual models: FRBR for bibliographic information (published in 1998), and CIDOC CRM for museum information (developed from 1996 on, and issued as ISO standard 21127 in 2006). An international working group was formed in 2003 with the purpose of harmonizing these two models. The resulting model, FRBROO, was published in 2009. It is an extension to CIDOC CRM, using the formalism in which the former is written. It adds to FRBR the dynamic aspects of CIDOC CRM, and a number of refinements (e.g. in the definitions of Work and Manifestation). Some modifications were made in CIDOC CRM as well. FRBROO was developed with Semantic Web technologies in mind, and lends itself well to the Linked Data environment; but will it be used in that context?

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 2953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=2953,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2953, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2953)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This article presents the process adopted by the France to bring library catalogs to the Web of data and the RDA role in this general strategy. After analising RDA limits and inconsistencies, inherited from the tradition of AACR and MARC21 catalogues, the authors present the French approach to RDA and its positioning in correlation to international standards like ISBD and FRBR. The method adopted in France for FRBRising the catalogues go through a technical work of creating alignment beteween existing data, exploiting the technologies applied to the creation of data.bnf.fr and through a revision of the French cataloguing rules, allowing FRBRised metadata creation. This revision is based on RDA and it is setting up a French RDA application profile, keeping the analysis on the greater differences. RDA adoption, actually, is not a crucial issue in France and not a self standing purpose; it is just a tool for the transition of bibliographic data towards the Web of data.

0.0023806747 = product of:
  0.023806747 = sum of:
    0.023806747 = weight(_text_:web in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023806747 = score(doc=5172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=1890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Library catalogs do not provide catalog users with the assistance they need to easily and confidently select the person they are interested in. Examples are provided of Web services that do a better job of helping information seekers differentiate the person they are seeking from those with similar names. Some of the reasons for this failure in library catalogs are examined. This article then looks at how much information is necessary to help users disambiguate names, how that information could be captured and shared, and some ways the information could be displayed in library catalogs.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 1981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=1981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1981)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) developed a Web-based platform for audiovisual media. The audiovisual portal optimizes access to scientific videos such as computer animations and lecture and conference recordings. TIB's AV-Portal combines traditional cataloging and automatic indexing of audiovisual media. The article describes metadata standards for audiovisual media and introduces the TIB's metadata schema in comparison to other metadata standards for non-textual materials. Additionally, we give an overview of multimedia retrieval technologies used for the Portal and present the AV-Portal in detail as well as the additional value for libraries and their users.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 1986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=1986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1986)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This summary considers the final articles selected for the special issue, interweaving some common threads that bind them together in their consideration of the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), consolidated edition, 2011, as a bibliographic content standard. With discussions of (1) the historical and current evolution of the ISBD, (2) the concept of Universal Bibliographic Control relative to an emerging Semantic Web environment, (3) ISBD and national cataloging codes, and (4) the continuing challenges of "non-book" resources, as context, the article concludes by exploring the question, "Is there a future for the ISBD?"

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The reflection provoked by RDA produced the awareness that the flat format of MARC 21 records is inadequate in expressing the relationships between bibliographic entities that the FRBR model and RDA standard consider fundamental. RIMMF and BIBFRAME indicate to software developers a way to think that is consistent with RDA. In Italy, @Cult, a software house and bibliographic agency working for Casalini Libri, has taken on the charge of following and facilitating the transition: OliSuite/WeCat provides an implementation of RDA that integrates vocabularies and ontologies already present in the Web by structuring the information in linked open data.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=5140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

French law on digital legal deposit covers websites and online content as well as ebooks. It imposes no obligation to produce a bibliography, indexing being sufficient. But despite their innovative characteristics, ebooks are still books, and their metadata is closer to that of printed materials than to the web indexing. To set up an ebook deposit workflow, the BnF benefits from its experience with digital documents and its tradition of legal deposit. This is to present the questions that it faces when dealing with the cataloging of ebooks and the management of their metadata, and the solutions that are emerging.

0.0023567479 = product of:
  0.023567477 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Ability to collect time-specific lists of faculty publications has become increasingly important for academic departments. At OHSU publication lists had been retrieved manually by a librarian who conducted literature searches in bibliographic databases. These searches were complicated and time consuming, and the results were large and difficult to assess for accuracy. The OHSU library has built an open web page that allows novices to make very sophisticated institution-specific queries. The tool frees up library staff, provides users with an easy way of retrieving reliable local publication information from PubMed, and gives an opportunity for more sophisticated users to modify the algorithm or dive into the data to better understand nuances from a strong jumping off point.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Cataloging and metadata operations in academic libraries are focusing on original cataloging of their unique and hidden collections that have not been available to users because of a lack of metadata. However, creating MARC format metadata is an expensive process; libraries need professional catalogers with appropriate experience and knowledge or must train staff to do the work. To improve the cataloging and metadata creation workflow, the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Library developed a web application, Metadata Maker, which allows anyone to create metadata in four different formats, including MARC21 for an online public access catalog, regardless of their familiarity with metadata standards or systems that utilize the metadata. Released as an open source application, Metadata Maker supports diacritics and Unicode non-Roman language encoding, and creates metadata records that ensure discovery and access of unique library collections.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2947)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, The process of implementation of RDA by Library of Congress, National Agricultural Library, and National Library of Medicine is presented. Each phase of development, test, decision, preparation for implementation of RDA and training about RDA is fully and accurately described and discussed. Benefits from implementation of RDA for the Library of Congress are identified and highlighted: more flexibility in cataloguing decisions, easier international sharing of cataloguing data, clearer linking among related works; closer cooperation with other libraries in the North American community, production of an online learning platform in order to deliver RDA training on a large scale in real time to catalogers.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

RDA Resource Description and Access are guidelines for description and access to resources designed for digital environment and released, in its first version, in 2010. RDA is based on FRBR and its derived models, that focus on users' needs and on resources of any kind of content, medium and carrier. The paper discusses relevance of main features of RDA for the future role of libraries in the context of semantic web and metadata creation and exchange. The paper aims to highlight many consequences deriving from RDA being a content standard, and in particular the change from record management to data management, differences among the two functions realized by RDA (to identify and to relate entities) and functions realized by other standard such as MARC21 (to archive data) and ISB (to visualize data) and show how, as all these functions are necessary for the catalog, RDA needs to be integrated by other rules and standard and that these tools allow the fulfilment of the variation principle defined by S.R. Ranganathan.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2951)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This article attempts to clarify the nature of the relationship between the RDA and ISBD standards in order to be able to understand their differences and vinculations, as well as to remove some misinterpretations about this relationship. With this objective, some aspects that can affect their differences, such as types of standards, points of view, scope, origin, policies of the creation and development group or organization in charge that logically justify these differences, are analyzed. These have not presented any obstacles for a correct relationship with the help of the Linked Data technology. In this article, account is also given of the work done of mappings and alignments between the standards in order to contribute properly to the Semantic Web. This knowledge is the one fundamental required for current catalogers to use standards judiciously, knowledgeably and responsibly.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

RIMMF software is grew out of the need to visualize and realize records according to the RDA guidelines. The article describes the software structure and features in the creation of a r­ball, that is a small database populated by recordings of bibliographic and authority resources enriched by relationships between and among entities involved. At first it's introduced the need that led to RIMMF outcome, then starts the software functional analysis. With a description of the main steps of the r-ball building, emphasizing the issues raised. The results highlights some critical aspects, but above all the wide scope of possible developments that open the Cultural Heritage Institutions horizon to the web prospective. Conclusions display the RDF-linked­data development of the RIMMF incoming future.

0.0020200694 = product of:
  0.020200694 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?