Pull quote: “I found myself wanting to get a picture of the metadata fields that are used in Summon responses, so I wrote a little script that does an open ended search and then walks through lots of results tallying up the fields used by content type.”

Pull quote: “But I suggest it’s no longer necessary for that ILS to be the center of our concern and attention, particularly if we see value in participating in the linked data world. The functions of creating and maintaining data could be accomplished elsewhere, preferably in a ‘system’ (maybe just a cache with services) designed to ingest, manage, and expose statement-based data in a variety of formats–including MARC, for as long as we want. Thus, the export of library data and the serving of it to users via an OPAC could be accomplished without giving up the MARC-based ILS, cutting the cord to OCLC, or upsetting current partners and collaborators.”

Pull quote: “A conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that there is still some work to be done on negotiating cultural differences on Wikidata. Wikidata has made a lot of connections between Wikipedia articles in different languages, but not all of those merges are clean.”

Pull quote: “By now, though, there’s been a definite shift towards wider and more common opening up of bibliographic records.  Large libraries like the German National Library and Harvard have released millions of the MARC records into the public domain.  OCLC has revised its data policies to give their blessing to member libraries releasing their catalog data under ODC-BY.  (They’ve also released some of their own data sets, like VIAF, under that license.)  And large online library collaborations like Europeana and the Digital Public Library of America have adopted a policy of public domain status (using the CC0 declaration) for their bibliographic metadata.   Both of these projects are now supplying promising platforms for projects that can aggregate, reuse, and build on this data in interesting and useful ways.”

Pull quote: “Better quality is not more metadata. Better quality is linked to providing the necessary context of a resource, a context that the user can understand in order to be able to find, identify, select and obtain that resource. This is the added value provided by catalogers and metadata libraries because they can bring together the disparately generated data and enhance it with providing relationships to other resources, terms from controlled vocabularies, or other specific information that a computer might not know.”

Talks about using tool from Google that helps you tag items for Schema markup.

Pull quote: “The likely benefits are two-fold. One is that Google and other search engines can display more full-featured and accurate descriptions of individual search results that have such markup. Another is that search engines may give results that have such markup more “juice” in results ranking. In other words, it is very likely to be worth the little effort it might take to embed this markup in your pages.”

Pull quote: “What is trendy about the ‘idea’ of metadata? Perhaps it’s the ability to say that … well metadata is good for discovery and access. It’s like eating your favorite dessert without the hassle of having to make it by hand every time you want it. The only thing is that the devil is in the details. The more I work with metadata the more this phrase rings true. The big picture is important. But it’s really the details where the action happens. The trendy focus on the big picture runs the risk of minimizing these details and the day to day work of catalog/metadata librarians. I guess the question becomes then how to promote the details as cool.”

Pull quote: “Many people have asked what we expect people to do with the data. Personally, I have no idea, and that’s the point. I’ve seen over and over that when data is made openly available with the fewest impediments — legal and technical — people are incredibly creative about finding innovative uses for the data that we never could have predicted.”

Pull quote: “John Palfrey, Chair of the DPLA, said he hoped that this would encourage other institutions to make their own collection metadata publicly available. According to Harvard’s FAQ, other libraries that have already done so include 3 million records from the British Library, 5.4 million from Cologne libraries, 3.6 million from the University of Cambridge, and 8 million from OCLC’s OhioLINK–OCLC Collection and Circulation Analysis Project.”

Pull quote: “Worst-case, an EBSCO with a lot of article metadata sewn up can let search-UI development slide, knowing libraries will buy because they need its exclusive metadata. That’s not good for libraries or for patrons. Or this could turn into another Big Deal situation, where EBSCO can charge the moon and stars because there’s no other way to get the information.”

Pull quote: “There’s no question that the data format known as RDF is darned difficult. Let’s suppose that we in the library world decide not to hitch our wagon to RDF, but would still like to create a new bibliographic framework. After all, if MARC simply won’t work for the creation of RDA records, we still need something besides MARC that we can use to create data. And even if (although this is unlikely) we should decide not to move to RDA, our records still need some upgrading to fit better into current data processing models.”