The educational objective of this session is to review today’s MARC-based environment in which the serial record predominates, and compare that with what might be possible in a future world of linked data. The session will inspire conversation and reflection on a number of questions. What will a world of statement-based rather than record-based metadata look like? What will a new environment mean for library systems, workflows, and information dissemination?

1. The Future of Serials
in a Linked Data World
Presented by Valerie Bross and Yvette Diven (for Laurie Kaplan)
Charleston Conference, November 8, 2012

2. Follow us on Twitter
We encourage you to tweet during this session.
As with all Charleston Conference sessions, the
official conference hashtag is:
#charleston12
2 11/08/2012

3. Agenda
 Current Landscape of Serials – Access to
Research
 Issues and current studies of linked data –
Extending the research
 Open Discussion – Questions and Answers
3 11/08/2012

4. 1770s – Thomas Jefferson classifies by subject
and chronology: Science, Memory (History),
300-30 BC - Library of Alexandria, Reason (Philosophy), and Imagination (Fine Arts)
Egypt – classification by subject
1882 – Cutter
1876 – Dewey Classification System 1897 – Library of Congress
Decimal System Classification System
4 11/08/2012

5. A Little History:
 Bottom line – librarians have been
classifying data, and therefore working
with linked data, for as long as libraries
have existed, to make resources
accessible to library patrons
5 11/08/2012

6. Current State of Serials
 Serials publications come in a variety of formats
 Cataloging and metadata enable discovery of these
resources
 The metadata associated with these and other
publications is multiplying, e.g.:
 ISNI (Name identifier)
 ORCID (Open Researcher & Contributor Identifier)
 ISTC (Text identifier)
 The familiar MARC records and AACR2 cataloging rules
used to describe these records are changing too
6 11/08/2012

7. Metadata Options
 Types of metadata to
include are:
 Descriptive, structural, and
administrative
 Descriptive metadata is most
useful for aiding discovery
 Formats available for
cataloging and delivery of
metadata including: Image created with WordleTM (http://www.wordle.net)
 MARC, Dublin Core, METS,
MODS, EAD, LOM, TEI, and
ONIX
7 11/08/2012

8. Bibliographic Framework Initiative
 Library of Congress engaged Eric Miller, from Zepheira,
to accelerate the Bibliographic Framework Initiative
 Project began in May 2012
 Updates can be found on the LC (http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/)
 Latest update is from Sally McCallum "Bibliographic
Framework Initiative Approach for MARC Data as Linked
Data," (a PowerPoint presentation from the 2012 IGeLU conference September 13, 2012).
 Bibliographic Framework Initiative goal:
 Replace MARC as the core vehicle for exchange of bibliographic
description
8 11/08/2012

9. Bibliographic Framework Initiative
 The linked data orientation will lead to easier integration
of catalog data with data on the web and in social media
 It will increase flexibility for descriptive data, and will
facilitate reuse of data for searching and applications
 McCallum noted that while balancing factors they would
―leverage machine technology for the
mechanical while keeping the librarian
expertise in control.‖
9 11/08/2012

10. So what about Linked Data,
Semantic Web, and Serials?
 Linked Data: potential replacement for MARC
 Publish structured data
 Link that data to other data to enhance discoverability over
the Web
 In line with MARC’s functions – representation and
communication
 RDF: main format for describing Linked Data
 Identified using URI (uniform resource identifiers)
 The two core and historical functions of MARC:
 Represent the data - RDF
 Communicate the data - Linked Data methods & practices
(Ford, K. (2012). ―LC’s Bibliographic Framework Initiative and the Attractiveness of Linked Data.‖ Information
Standards Quarterly. 24(2/3) p. 46-50.)
10 11/08/2012

11. Linked Data Service
 Library of Congress already has published a Linked Data
Service (id.loc.gov)
 Started in 2009
 Includes 17 data sets in RDF:
LC Subject Headings:
11 11/08/2012

12. Who is currently involved?
 Some of the more familiar  JISC
library participants:  LOCAH – Linked Open
Copac and Archives Hub
 Library of Congress
 Linked Data Service -Id.loc.gov
 Bibliographic Framework
Initiative
12 11/08/2012

13. Who is currently involved?
 OCLC
 Dewey.info
 VIAF.org
 FAST (http://id.worldcat.org/fast/)
 Serials Solutions
 IntotaTM
13 11/08/2012

14. Library Use Example
 Dewey.info (Dewey Decimal Service)
 Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) top three levels
became available as linked data in September 2009
 Summaries are also available as linked data (June 2012)
 Extends the web document version of Dewey by adding
RDF vocabulary and URIs
 Librarians can add URIs to Dewey numbers in their
records to link to the top three levels and the summaries
 Available in nine languages
 Updates are automatically available through the links
14 11/08/2012

15. Research Example
 Impetus: need to improve the National Science and Technology
Library (NSTL) workflow
 2009-2010 preresearch
 project led by the Institute of Science and Technology Information (ISTIC)
and funded by the National Science and Technology Library (NSTL)
 Goals and objectives of the project:
 to build structured URI based on FRBR and semantic relationships for the serials
publications; . . .
 to optimally streamline NSTL workflow such as helping the Union Data
Processing System to identify relationships and match related metadata; and
 to support Central Repository and Union Service System by superior
presentation of the ―seriality and dynamicity‖ of the serials in search results.
 Defined and linked relationships based on identifiers: Super-
Work-ID, Work-ID, Expression-ID and Manifestation-ID
15 11/08/2012

16. FIG. 1. Linking of serial development
16 11/08/2012

17. Role of Libraries and Linked Data
 Exposing collections – use of Semantic Web
technology
 ―Webifying‖ thesaurus, mapping, and taxonomy
services
 Continuing to share trials and tribulations
 Persistence
 Ensuring the Bibliographic Framework Initiative moves ahead
 Advocating changes from the data provider community
 Experimenting with linked data for collections in their
libraries
17 11/08/2012

18. Linked data
Söderbäck, Anders. ―Why libraries should embrace linked
data‖ http://code4lib.org/files/LIBRIS_code4lib.pdf
18 11/08/2012

19. Still more to consider
 Serials: the shape-shifters
 Some inspirational(?) pictures
 What we want: can we get there?
19 11/08/2012

20. Serials, or what?
20 11/08/2012

21. Why seek linked data solutions?
 The Published Record:
 Navigation among levels and serial segments
 Linking to all related data
 Citation management
 Social aspects (peer review, metrics, etc.)
 The Process
 Authoring process
 Metadata management
 ―Optimization‖

22. X-ISSN
xISSN History Visualization Tool
http://worldcat.org/xissn/titlehistory

23. Harpers.org

24. New York Times rNews vocabulary
24 11/08/2012

25. Behind the scenes…

26. Libraries: Issues
 What we want
 Better search capabilities for our researchers
 Better clustering of related data—and navigation
 Partnerships that could improve accuracy and timeliness of our
metadata
 What we have tried
 Conversion of catalog records
 Identification of faculty
 Barriers
 Learning curve
 Redefining our role in this new environment

27. Publishers/Providers: Issues
 What we want
 Improve discovery through exposure of existing content as linked data
 Leverage existing infrastructure
 Strengthen partnerships for enhanced content
 Build authoritative resources
 What we have tried
 Built discovery services that integrate data services & content in the linked data
cloud
 Refined techniques for identity resolution, building on industry-wide
collaboration
 Barriers
 Scarce human resources
 Cost of meeting very different sets of expectations across multiple platforms
 Gaps in linked data tools
 Quality control for external data

28. Now, over to you…
28 11/08/2012

29. Some Questions for discussion
 From a library perspective, how can we make sure that
our bibliographic and authority metadata can be mapped
to linked data? What aspects of our current practices
need to be re-thought in order to make our work linked-
data ready?
 From a cross-community perspective, what needs to be
done among publisher, library, vendor communities to
make sure that we can work together effectively to
contribute data to create linked data services? Or is that
something that will be taken care of by the developers?
 What standards and tools still need to be developed to
support the development of linked-data services in
general, and services for serials data specifically?
29 11/08/2012

30. Additional Questions
 What do you see as some of the barriers that need to be
worked out in order for linked data initiatives to be
effective (missing standards, resources)?
 What have you been doing to prepare your organization
to participate in this new linked world?
 What are some of the linked-data projects you have been
tracking?
 What has your organization been doing to prepare staff
to participate in the ―linked data‖ environment?
 In your current workflow, do you see the use of linked
data helping or hindering your processes?
30 11/08/2012

31. References
 Ahonen, Eeva and Eero Hyvönen. (2009). ―Publishing Historical Texts on the Semantic Web.‖ http://www.seco.tkk.fi/publications/
 Byrne, Gillian and Goddard, Lisa. (2010). ―The strongest link: Libraries and linked data.‖ D-Lib® Magazine, 16(11/12). Retrieved from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november10/byrne/11byrne.html
 Coyle, Karen. (2012). ―Linked Data Tools: Connecting on the Web.‖ Library Technology Reports, 48(4).
 Cyganiak, Richard and Anja Jentzsch, ―The Linking Open Data Cloud Diagram,‖ last modified September 19, 2011,
http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod.
 Ford, Kevin. (2012). ―LC’s Bibliographic Framework Initiative and the Attractiveness of Linked Data.‖ Information Standards Quarterly.
24(2/3) p. 46-50.
 Haiyan, Bai and Cho, Yung-Lung. (2009). ―Structuring Serials Bibliographic Relationships through ID Linking.‖ [Poster – Seoul
Conference, Oct 12-16, 2009] Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 131-132.
 Krier, Laura. (2012). ―Serials, FRBR, and library linked data: a way forward.‖ Journal of Library Metadata, 12:2-3, 177-187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2012.69934
 Malmsten, Martin and Safstrom, Miriam. (2012). ―Linked Data at the National Library of Sweden.‖ (webcast).
http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5521
 Marcum, Deanna. (2011). A Bibliographic Framework for the Digital Age.‖ http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-
103111.html
 McCallum, Sally. (2012). ―Bibliographic Framework Initiative Approach for MARC Data as Linked Data." http://igelu.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/IGeLU-sally-McCallum.pptx
 Sandhaus, Evan. (2012). ―rNews is here.‖ http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/rnews-is-here-and-this-is-what-it-means/
 Söderbäck, Anders. (2009). ―Why libraries should embrace linked data.‖ http://code4lib.org/files/LIBRIS_code4lib.pdf
 Tous, Ruben, Manel Guerrero, and Jaime Delgado. (2011). ―Semantic web for reliable citation analysis in scholarly publishing.‖
Information Technology and Libraries, 24-33.
 Webmaster Tools. http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=
 xISSN History Visualization Tool. http://xissn.worldcat.org/xissnadmin/index.htm
31 11/08/2012

32. Thank you for listening and
participating!
Valerie Bross – vbross@libraryucla.edu
Yvette Diven – ydiven@proquest.com
(Laurie Kaplan – lkaplan@proquest.com)
32 11/08/2012