The Road Forwardbased on what we’ve learned from the one

we’ve been on

Diane Hillmann and Gordon DunsireNISO Bibliographic Roadmap meeting, April 15-16, 2013, Baltimore, MD, USA

Let’s start from here

FRBRer FRBRooISBD

BibOMARC 21

UNIMARC

RDA

DC

BIBFRAME?

Schema.org/bibex?

Bibliographic RDF element sets

Local

Similar things, different povs

o It’s the same bibliographic universe

o With common concepts found in most bibliographic schema/element sets

o Author, title, subject, format, etc.

o Plus specialized concepts for non-global use

o Musical key, parallel title, etc.

o Allowing semantic maps between particular schema elements/properties (ontologies)

m21:M338__b

rda:carrierTypeManifestation

rda:mediaTypeManifestation

dct:format

dc:format

unc:mediaType

isbd:P1003

schema:encodes

Carrier/format concept map (ontology)

Environment

o Many element sets and vocabularies

o Common concept maps are in process - more can be created, and viewed as part of a “contract”

o Don’t need complete “schema-to-schema” maps

o Concept-focused maps/ontologies are the consensus, not the schema boundary

o What’s the common minimal data that you need to provide to be part of a global service? What else is necessary for the description?

Design strategies

o Bottom up, not top down: the evidence of global consensus lies in the commonality of multiple local environments

o Top down requires agreement prior to evidence of usage

o Some approved elements never get used; MARC 21 has several examples

o The consensus may not lie at “the top”, i.e. the “dumbest” element

From local to global (data)o “Contract” specifies set of properties that data

must interoperate with

o Local data can interoperate via direct mapping, or via connection to any part of a concept-focused map

o Local data remains in original format for local applications

o Automatically dumbed-down for global services using maps

o “Think global, act local” = add mappings from local properties to global graphs

Role of Standards Organization

o Build on library community strengths in collaboration and trust

o Maintain “contract” for accepting data in global service(s)

o Consensus identification of component elements

o New candidate elements identified by local usage

o “Endorsement” mechanism brings new elements into contract

Local to global (development)

o Local development proceeds at own pace

o No need to wait for consensus approval

o Global endorsement necessarily and usefully lags behind local developments

o E.g. W3C/HTML5; schema.org

o “Tell us what to do”

o Do your own thing!

Beware of Zombie Issues

o Assumption of “records” as units of management

o Records can be inputs or outputs

o Round tripping

o It’s not about data “residence” in one schema or another—more of a “view”

o De-duplication—no more “master records”

o Data at the statement level is available for many kinds of aggregation

Provenance and Filtering

o “Who says?” is an essential question when evaluating statements

o Not all data statements are created equal, but trustworthiness is hard to determine without provenance

o Provenance info is the basis for data filtering

o No other technique works quite as well to determine quality

What’s Needed?

o Infinite namespaces, without encodings, sequences, hierarchies

o Support for innovation at every level

o Commitment to move forward (not back), and to learn the right lessons from experience

o Leadership from institutions and individuals