On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Diane I. Hillmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Further down in the specific analyses of the terms chosen for the sample AP,
> we see that the lcsh.info work seems to be recommended--and I have some
> concerns with that. This work is specifically not the official source of
> LCSH, and much as I have the utmost respect for it and use it in
> presentations as an example of what can (and hopefully will) be done, we
> need to be really clear that this is NOT the official prime time source of
> URIs for LCSH.
Just so I understand are you concerned that the domain for the URIs
isn't loc.gov? Or do you have other concerns as well?
> Not being "real" about this risks losing credibility with
> the library community, which has a big stake in this work being done
> officially and with care (and appropriate maintenance). If you want to use
> a vocabulary that does have official URIs, I'd suggest one of the GEM
> vocabularies available on the NSDL Registry (which actually might be more
> appropriate for the application!). Or use LCSH as literals for now (or
> both).
Hmph, that sounds a bit self-serving but I'm no stranger to that :-)
//Ed
|