Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

New World of Metadata: Growing, Shifting, Merging


Published on

Presentation for Metadata Day in Worcester, Mass. Focus is on new developments in the metadata world that affect all metadata implementors, but particularly those in the bibliographic domain.

Presentation for Metadata Day in Worcester, Mass. Focus is on new developments in the metadata world that affect all metadata implementors, but particularly those in the bibliographic domain.

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Application Profiles document the hard choices implementers make when adopting standards – for example, they reflect whether a data field is deemed mandatory or optional or simply unused for a particular project. In all of this tailoring, the application profile always remains within the limits set by the larger standard. It can narrow the scope of a standard, but it always has to still conform with the specification it originates from.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Intro to (New) Metadata 0 What’s the problem, huh? 0 Are the old questions the right questions? 0 Are our assumptions about metadata still valid? 0 What exactly are the new realities we need to consider? 0 What are some survival strategies for the times to come?5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 2
    • 2. After we empty the card catalog … We hear that there’s a crisis in libraries, but we still haven’t realized how pervasive it is Reality: we’ve gotten rid of the cards, now we need to get rid of the catalog. If we don’t, we may lose our institutional support, our mission, and our way … 5/9/12Metadata Day, Worcester 3
    • 3. “As librarians, we pride ourselves on operating outside of the commercial marketplace. However, whether we like it or not, we are working in an information environment the dynamics of which are very much like those of a free market, except the the currency spent by our “customers” is not money, but time and attention. … We may believe, for example, that our carefully-crafted catalog records provide excellent value in return for the time and energy required to use them—and we may be right. But if our patrons doubt that the catalog will return good value in exchange for the time and energy required to use it, then whatever value the catalog may actually contain becomes irrelevant.” Rick Anderson, The Crisis in Research Librarianship, Journal of Academic Librarianship, July 20115/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 4
    • 4. “Wikipedia is founded on the belief (largely correct, as itturns out) that crowds both can and will provide high-quality content and metadata to the world at no charge.For our part, in research libraries we still tend to treatbooks as if they are primarily tools for linear reading, andmetadata records as artisanal products. We still buildcollections that are fenced off from the larger informationworld and encourage our patrons, against all reason, tobegin their information searches within the confines of ourartificially limited collections.” Rick Anderson, The Crisis in Research Librarianship, Journal of Academic Librarianship, July 20115/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 5
    • 5. “We must look with cold and hard-headed rationality at our current practices and ask ourselves not what value they offer, but rather what value our patrons believe they offer. If what we offer our patrons is not perceived as valuable by them, then we have two choices: change their minds, or redirect our resources. The former is virtually impossible; the latter is enormously painful. But the latter is possible, and if we do not undertake such a redirection ourselves, it will almost certainly be undertaken for us.” Rick Anderson, The Crisis in Research Librarianship, Journal of Academic Librarianship, July 20115/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 6
    • 6. Poking Holes in theOld SilosUnderstanding what we cangain by moving into the linkeddata world is really critical for‘future-proofing’ our effortsWe have a great deal to offerto the wider world, but wecan’t do it if we cling to the oldfamiliar ways of doing thingsLearning about other dataavailable to us (that we don’thave to pay to create) isessential, despite ourinclination not to trust anydata but our own5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 7
    • 7. “In the big picture, very little will change: libraries will need to be in the data business to help people find things. In the close-up view, everything is changing-- the materials and players are different, the machines are different, and the technologies can do things that were hard to imagine even 20 years ago.” Eric Hellman Metadata Day, Worcester 8
    • 8. Questionable Assumptions 0 We’re going to continue to build records for library catalogs 0 We’ve always shared ‘records’ in cataloging, and that’s still the right way to do things 0 The choice of the ‘right metadata format’ (e.g., DC, MODS, RDA, etc.) is critically important 0 The proliferation of metadata formats is a bad thing 0 The ‘old’ way of cataloging materials one-at-a-time always produces better quality data than any other method5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 9
    • 9. This Is NOT About Blaming the Messengers5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 10
    • 10. “Today, we face another significant time of change that isbeing prompted by today’s library user. This user no longervisits the physical library as his primary source ofinformation, but seeks and creates information whileconnected to the global computer network. The change thatlibraries will need to make in response must include thetransformation of the library’s public catalog from a stand-alone database of bibliographic records to a highlyhyperlinked data set that can interact with informationresources on the World Wide Web. The library data canthen be integrated into the virtual working spaces of theusers served by the library.”--Karen Coyle, Understanding the Semantic Web: Bibliographic Data and Metadata, Jan. 20105/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 11
    • 11. If all of this sounds otherworldly and vague, it is because there is no specific vision of where these changes will lead us. The crystal ball is unfortunately shortsighted, in no small part because this is a time of rapid change in many aspects of the information ecology. The few things that are certain, however, point to the Web, and its eventual successors, as the place to be. For libraries, this means yet another evolutionary step in the library of our catalog: from metadata to metaDATA.” --Karen Coyle, Understanding the Semantic Web: Bibliographic Data and Metadata, Jan. 20105/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 12
    • 12. Model of ‘the World’ /XML 0 XML assumes a closed world (domain), usually defined by a schema: 0 "We know all of the data describing this resource. The single description must be a valid document according to our schema. The data must be valid.” 0XMLs document model provides a neat equivalence to a metadata record’5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 13
    • 13. Model of ‘the World’ /RDF 0 RDF assumes an open world: 0 "Theres an infinite amount of unknown data describing this resource yet to be discovered. It will come from an infinite number of providers. There will be an infinite number of descriptions. Those descriptions must be consistent." 0 RDFs statement-oriented data model has no notion of record’ (rather, statements can be aggregated for a fuller description of a resource)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 14
    • 14. What Are the Components of the Semantic Web? 0 RDF: Resource Description Framework 0 Statements about Web resources in the form of subject- predicate-object expressions, called triples 0 E.g. “This presentation” –“has creator” –“Diane Hillmann” 0 RDF Schema 0 Vocabulary description language of RDF 0 SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System 0 Expresses the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies 0 An RDF application 0 OWL (Web Ontology Language) 0 Explicitly represents the meaning of terms in vocabularies and the relationships between them5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 15
    • 15. Semantic Web Building Blocks 0 Each component of an RDF statement (triple) is a “resource” 0 RDF is about making machine-processable statements, requiring 0 A machine-processable language for representing RDF statements 0 Extensible Markup Language (XML) can be used 0 A system of machine-processable identifiers for resources (subjects, predicates, objects) 0 Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) 0 For full machine-processing potential, an RDF statement is a set of three URIs5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 16
    • 16. Things Requiring Identification 0 Object “This presentation” 0 e.g. its electronic location (URL): 0 Predicate “has creator” 0 e.g. 0 Object “Diane Hillmann” 0 e.g. URI of entry in Library of Congress Name Authority File (real soon now?) 0 NAF: nr2001015786 0 Declaring vocabularies/values in SKOS and OWL provides URIs 0 Without such identifiers, the Web will never become Semantic5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 17
    • 17. What‟s the Point of Interoperability?0 For users, it‟s about resource discovery (user tasks) 0 What‟s out there? 0 Is it what I need for my task? 0 Can I use it? 0 Reality: They don’t care about what metadata format you’re using!0 For resource creators, it‟s about distribution and marketing 0 How can I increase the number of people who find my resources easily? 0 How can I justify the funding required to make these resources available? 0 How can I maximize my human resources in a world of smaller budgets and larger expectations?5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 18
    • 18. Questioning OurModelsToday’s metadata is not aboutchoices of formats, it’s aboutensuring interoperability andharmonization for our data inthe worldOur old model is based oncatalog cards, regardless of themethod of delivery throughour online catalogsThe new metadataenvironment provides betterways to expressrelationships—both contentto content and concept toconcept5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 19
    • 19. Why Use Models for Metadata? 0 To understand what entities you are dealing with 0 To understand what metadata are relevant to which entities 0 To understand relationships between different entities 0 To organize your metadata to make it more predictable (and be able to create and use it with automated tools)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 20
    • 20. Descriptive Metadata Models 0 Conceptual models for bibliographic and authority data 0 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) 0 Functional Requirement for Authority Data (FRAD) 0 Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) 0 Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM) 0 Some other models: 0 CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (emerged from museum community) 0 INDECS (for intellectual property rights)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 21
    • 21. Bibliographic relationships (pre-FRBR) 0 Tillett‟s Taxonomy (1987) 0 Equivalence 0 Derivative 0 Descriptive 0 Whole-part 0 Accompanying 0 Sequential 0 Shared-characteristic5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 22
    • 22. FRBR Entities 0 Bibliographic entities: works, expressions, manifestations, items 0 Responsible parties: persons, corporate bodies 0 Subject entities: concepts, objects, events, places5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 23
    • 23. Group 1 Entities & Their RelationshipsAn Expression Work “realizes” A Work A Work “Is realized through” An Expression Expression An ExpressionA Manifestation“embodies” “Is embodied in”An Expression A Manifestation Manifestation An Item“exemplifies” A ManifestationA Manifestation “Is exemplified by” An Item Item [Thanks to Sherry Vellucci for this slide.] 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 24
    • 24. DC Abstract Model 0 Reaffirms the ‘One-to-One Principle’ 0 Defines„statement‟as the atomic level 0 Distinguishes between “description” and “description set”: 0 Description: “One or more statements about one, and only one, resource.” 0 Description Set: “A set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a single resource.” 0 RDA vocabularies developed to reflect the DC Abstract Model5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 25
    • 25. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: Metadata Day, Worcester 26
    • 26. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: Metadata Day, Worcester 27
    • 27. Anatomy of a Statement (Attribute/Value) Property Value Place of Production: New York Value String5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 28
    • 28. Anatomy of a Statement (Attribute/Value) Property Value Place of Production: Related Description5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 29
    • 29. A Related Description5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 30
    • 30. Description Sets a Key Concept!5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 31
    • 31. Description Set= “A set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a single resource.”* *DCAM Definition5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 32
    • 32. A FRBR Description Set “Package”WorkExpressionManifestation5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 33
    • 33. is instantiated record as is grouped description into A record consists of descriptions, set using properties and values. description description description A value can be a string or a pointer to another description.has one statementor more statement statement has one property has one value string value is a is represented by one or more representation representation OR representation is a related 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester description 34
    • 34. Basic model: Resource with properties A Play has the title “Antony and Cleopatra,” was written in 1606 by William Shakespeare, and is about “Roman history”5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 35
    • 35. … related to other Resources5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 36
    • 36. Pulling it together;writing it all downIf you want others to be ableto use your data, you’ll needto be clear about yourintentions and documentthemAn Application Profile is onegood way to do this so thatyour data can be properlyinterpreted, and easily usedin a variety of waysThis is an area where DCMIhas been working for sometime …5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 37
    • 37. What Are Application Profiles? 0 APs describe the set of metadata elements, policies, guidelines and vocabularies defined for a particular domain, implementation, or object type 0 Declares the metadata terms an organization, information resource, application, or community uses in its metadata 0 Documents metadata standards used in instance data, including schemas and vocabularies, policies, required elements, etc. 0 Called “application profile” or just “profile”5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 38
    • 38. 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 39
    • 39. Less Flexibility, More Predictability 0 Many metadata standards are sufficiently flexible that they need a mechanism to impose some constraints 0 Profiles allow expression of the decisions made for a project in machine-readable form 0 Refining 0 Allows a narrower interpretation of a standard to suit the needs of a domain or project 0 Combining 0 Enable mixing elements from various different standards (there are limits to this!)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 40
    • 40. Components of an AP 0 Human readable documentation 0 Property descriptions and relationships 0 Domain or project specific instruction 0 Obligation and constraints 0 Machine-readable versions: 0 Specific encoding decisions and XML schemas or RDF 0 Models of data relationships specific to the AP represented in the schemas 0 Functional requirements and use cases supporting decisions and clarifying intent5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 41
    • 41. Using Properties from a Variety of Schemas 0 DC APs set stringent requirements for determining reusability of terms: 0 Is the term a real “property” and defined as such within the source schema? 0 Is the term declared properly, with a URI and adequate documentation and support? 0 In general, properties whose meaning is partly or wholly determined by its place in a hierarchy are not appropriate for reuse in DC APs without reference to the hierarchy. 0 Other styles of profiles have different requirements and strategies for developing machine-readability and validation5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 42
    • 42. How Does Quality Happen? 0 Lessons from the library community 0 Quality is quantifiable and measurable 0 To be effective, enforcement of standards of quality must take place at the community level 0 Looking more broadly: 0 Data problems are not unique to particular communities 0 General strategies can improve interoperability 0 Quality is not tied to any particular creation strategy 0 Human created metadata can be extremely variable 0 Machine-created metadata is far more consistent, but that consistency may not be correct5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 43
    • 43. Quality Measurement: Criteria 0 Completeness 0 Accuracy 0 Provenance 0 Conformance to expectations 0 Logical consistency and coherence 0 Timeliness (Currency and Lag) 0 Accessibility5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 44
    • 44. Is Trust Based on Quality? 0 In traditional libraries, trust of other library metadata is nearly automatic 0 Based on many years of sharing data, common agreements, and reality 0 On the Web, data comes from many sources, not all have the immediate trust of libraries 0 Evaluation strategies and techniques of determining quality must be at a collective level 0 Standards for provenance being developed by W3C and DCMI will improve the ability to assess quality and assign trust levels 0 Libraries might want to collaborate on and share evaluations5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 45
    • 45. BREAK!!5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 46
    • 46. Top Down vs. BottomUp?Where standards aredeveloped and whosupports them arecritical to their successA case study is the RDAVocabulariesIs this an anomaly orthe precursor of thingsto come?5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 47 Flickr photo by freebird4
    • 47. RDA Vocabularies: General Strategy  We used the Semantic Web as our “mental model”  Wanted to create a “bridge” between XML and RDF to support innovation in the library community as a whole, not just those at the cutting edge or the trailing edge  We registered the FRBR entities as classes in a ‘FRBR in RDA’ vocabulary, to enable specific relationships between RDA properties and FRBR  IFLA has followed suit using the Open Metadata Registry to add the ‘official’ FRBR entities, FRAD, FRSAR and ISBD  This provides exciting opportunities to relate all the vocabularies together5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 48
    • 48. Structure: Rationale & Decisions 0 Property and value vocabularies are registered in the Open Metadata Registry (formerly the NSDL Registry): 0 Used RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL) 0 Decisions oriented to favor approaches that can be generalized to make other vocabulary based standards web-friendly, available for use in applications, and easily updated by communities 0 RDA still a work-in-progress, without agreements on maintenance, boundaries, etc.5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 49
    • 49. The Structure, Simplified 0 FRBR in RDA Vocabulary declared as classes 0 RDA Properties declared as a ‘generalized’ vocabulary, with no explicit relationship to FRBR entities 0 Subproperties for the generalized elements may be explicitly related to FRBR entities (using ‘domain’) 0 Label/Name includes (Work) or other class to provide unique name (unless the entity name already appears in the name of the property) 0 Other generalized subproperties usable by others not tied to FRBR5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 50
    • 50. Why Generalized Properties? 0 The generalized properties essential for relating RDA to the larger world 0 Mapping will be cleaner using the generalized properties (since most properties mapped to or mapped from will not be based on FRBR) 0 Extensions can be built more usefully from the generalized properties 0 Generalized properties much more acceptable to non-library implementers (not often using FRBR) 0 The ‘bounded’ properties are the first pass at an Application Profile for RDA as a whole 0 Discussions ongoing about completion of the AP, hopefully this year5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 51
    • 51. Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship) Semantic Web Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity The Simple Case: Library Applications One Property-- One FRBR Entity5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 52
    • 52. Book format Semantic Web Book format (Manifestation) Manifestation The Simple Case: Library Applications One Property-- One FRBR Entity5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 53
    • 53. Metadata Day, Worcester 54
    • 54. More Complex Relationships  There are multiple techniques used in RDA to make the connection between FRBR entities and RDA properties  We tried to reconcile those in the RDA Vocabularies  Some properties related to more than one FRBR entity  Relationships in Appendix J actually include the name of the FRBR entity in the name and have separate definitions (we re-used this strategy for the FRBR-bounded properties)  Other properties and sub-properties appear multiple times in the text and ERDs, with the same definitions and no indication that they might be repeated elsewhere (we consolidated these)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 55
    • 55. Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship) Semantic Web Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity Library Applications The Not-So-Simple Case: One Property—more than One FRBR Entity5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 56
    • 56. Extent Semantic Web Extent (Manifestation) FRBR Manifestation Extent (Item) FRBR Item Library Applications The Not-So-Simple Case: One Property—more than One FRBR Entity5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 57
    • 57. 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 58
    • 58. Roles: Attributes or Properties? 0 In 2005, the DC Usage Board worked with LC to build a formal representation of the MARC Relators so that these terms could be used with DC  This work provided a template for the registration of the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I) and, by extension, the other RDA relationships  Role and relationship properties are registered at the same level as elements, rather than as attributes (as MARC does with relators, and RDA does in its XML schemas)  Applications can choose either approach5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 59
    • 59. Mapping, “Super” Property Etc. Subproperty (Generalized, no FRBR Semantic relationship) Web Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity) FRBR Entity Library Applications The Roles Case: Properties, Subproperties and FRBR Entities5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 60
    • 60. Mapping, RDA:Creator Etc. Semantic RDArole:Composer Web RDArole:Composer (Work) Work Library Applications The Roles Case: Properties, Subproperties and FRBR Entities5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 61
    • 61. Aggregated Statements  RDA sets up Publication, Distribution, Manufacture and Production statements very much the way they have been done since catalog card days:  Assumed aggregation of Place, Name and Date are obvious leftovers from catalog cards, and are not necessary to enable indexing or display of those elements together if libraries want to do that  We viewed those aggregations as ‘Syntax Encoding Schemes’ (as defined in the DCAM) and built in ways to accommodate them within the bounded properties  Those using the generalized properties (outside libraries, usually) need not be constrained by these traditional aggregations of properties5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 62
    • 62. Pre-coordinated Statements: Structure Aggregated Statement (no domain or range) Domain: FRBR Entity Aggregated Statement Subproperty Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype) Range: [Specific] Encoding Scheme (Subclass) General Property (no domain or range) Subproperty Option 15/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 63
    • 63. Pre-coordinated Statements: Example Publication Statement (no domain or range) Domain: Manifestation Publication Statement (Manifestation) Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype) Range: Publication Statement Encoding Scheme (Subclass) Place of publication (no domain or range) Place of publication (Manifestation) Option 15/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 64
    • 64. What Does This Structure Buy Us? 0 Release from the tyranny of records 0 Potential for use with a variety of encodings 0 Ability to maintain statements at a more granular level 0 Opportunity to re-think how we build, maintain and share data 0 Potential for sharing data beyond the library silo 0 Both directions! 0 A challenge to our old notions of what library data can do and should be doing 0 As our users migrate to the web and away from library catalogs, we need to follow them (and lead them appropriately!)5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 65
    • 65. Finding Our WayAroundThere’s not just one way toalign bibliographic data: wedon’t have to agree on one‘authoritative’ mapping‘Crosswalking’ strategies,aimed at use by particularapplications, see thatactivity as primarilyaccomplished by networksCrosswalks only recognizeone relationship: sameAs—this is a very bluntinstrument5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 66
    • 66. Collapsing and Extending 0 We’re starting to envision how mapping and alignment of elements and concepts can provide a clearer pathway between schemas 0 More specificity for special materials can be accomplished by extending element vocabularies for particular purposes 0 As we build these maps, we can provide different views of data without necessarily having to change the data values themselves5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 67
    • 67. Mapping 0 Building relationships between vocabularies is not necessarily a proprietary, high-level activity tied to particular applications or services 0 provides a beginning point for mapping library data that is easily shared and modified to meet a variety of needs 0 New approaches go beyond ‘sameAs’ and suggest the potential for more granular, nuanced relationships5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 68
    • 68. The sub-property ladder m21: “Target audience” rdfs:subPropertyOf m21: m21:“Target audience of “Target audience of visual materials” music” m21: m21:“Target audience of “Target audience of books” language material” 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester Slide: Gordon Dunsire 69
    • 69. “Audience” map unconstrained: rdfs:subPropertyOf “has note on use or audience” isbd: “has note on use or audience” unconstrained: “Intended audience” m21: dct:“Target audience” rdfs: “audience” subPropertyOf rda: frbrer: “Intended audience” “has intended 5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester audience” 70 Slide: Gordon Dunsire
    • 70. Vocabulary Extension 0 The inclusion of unconstrained properties provides a path for extension of RDA into specialized library communities and non-library communities 0 They may have a different notion of how FRBR ‘aggregates’ (For example, a colorized version of a film may be viewed as a separate work) 0 They may not wish to use FRBR at all 0 They may have additional properties to use, that could have a relationship to the RDA properties5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 71
    • 71. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScript5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 72
    • 72. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScript KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook Extension using Generalized Properties5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 73
    • 73. RDA:adaptedAs RDA:adaptedAsARadioScrip t KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook KidLit:adaptedAsAChapterBook Extension using Generalized Properties5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 74
    • 74. Where Are We Going? 0 Many of the older bibliographic standards are undergoing review in order to be ‘alignment ready’ (ISBD, FR Family) 0 RDF versions will be available for all 0 Application profiles being built 0 MARC21 now available in its entirety as RDF, with mapping in mind 0 New possibilities for interoperability and harmonization are being circulated widely5/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 75
    • 75. Links and Contact Info RDA Vocabularies: MARC 21 in RDF: Diane: “RDA Vocabularies: Process, Outcome, Use”, DLib Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2010: “A Reconsideration of Mapping in a Semantic World” 225/9/12 Metadata Day, Worcester 76