Vocabularies

From Library Linked Data
Jump to: navigation, search

In this section you can find vocabularies which were identified during the use case review process. These vocabularies could serve as a base for a discussion at our F2F meeting in Pittsburgh

Vocabulary discussion in Pittsburgh

Main discussion topics for Vocabularies were as follows:

Vocabulary production & curation

  • Ownership is important : FRBR core vs. FRBR-IFLA. Official owners should be quick in providing URIs, or else others will do it unofficially
  • “Some institution” should maintain links between vocs /OR/ institutions who maintain vocs should provide links to other vocs // some political commitment is needed to improve trust in vocs, endorse them and curate them
  • Persistence policy for ontologies and namespaces ?
  • Guidance for creators of vocs : How to create good vocs for the Web ? Recipes, best practices, with a limited scope to library linked data.
  • “Registering” vocabularies : i.e. declare them in a metadata registry with a URI. Is the term “registering” misleading ? The registry is not mandatory in a Linked Data perspective, but it brings some interesting additional services.

Use of vocabularies

  • Perception of barriers regarding the use of certain vocabularies – certain more difficult than others, or perceived to be so
  • Is it OK to pick some pieces from a voc, rather than following the global guidelines from the voc as it was originally intended ? “Out of band” guidelines are not significant in a LD environment, but they are in scope for our domain (libs). Vocs providers should be aware of risk of loss of context
  • How to identify the source/scheme/context for controlled string values (vocabularies encoding schemes)

Vocabulary development

  • MARC as the domain model for libraries ??? - Is a MARC ontology needed ? Or rather focus on content standards such as AACR2, ISBD, RDA ? Or MADS & MODS ?
  • For the sake of Interoperability, need to adapt general vocs out there (e.g. FOAF) to library data : blank nodes ? Subproperties ? Contribute to development ? Anyway, seek convergence.
  • Difference between the label and the concept – Authorities are about labels, names – not real world entities : the context is important !
  • Current coverage of vocabularies – what's missing ?


Existing published Vocabularies available for reuse

Local or special vocabularies

Work in progress to create ontologies for:

Vocabularies for which no RDF version is available

Reference value vocabularies

Mapped/merged Value Vocabularies

(available through terminology services or published vocabs)