Sorry to split this out, but my brain can only deal with one concept at a
time, and it might make it easier to find posts in future...
On 3 March 2010 15:03, Ottevanger, Jeremy <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Thanks for outlining the question, Mia. If I could add another dimension
> worth considering, it's the question of whether we're equally interested
> (or disinterested) in publishing and "consuming" linked data. I think
> we've put a fair bit of mental effort into the publishing part, even if
> little has actually been published by the UK cultural heritage sector
> that qualifies as "linked data", but we've not really done much with
> consuming linked data sources (with some exceptions, again).
Personally, ideally we'd be both. Linked data should make cross-collections
searches easier, and permanent addresses for information about things (like
objects) should make it easier to say, bring in an item from the Wellcome
Collection and display it alongside some of our related medical history
objects online.
But there's a catch 22 - we need enough linked data around for people to
bother using it, and we want clear demand from users to justify the
resources involved in publishing it. Using it internally, in partnership
projects or with aggregators like the Collections Trust might help break the
catch 22.
I can think of several other 'consumers', including from search engines that
might consume structured data in RDFa, various types of developers who might
consume data in various heavy or light forms, or through intermediary APIs,
and finally end users, who might use the sites created by other developers,
or simply browse pages on our sites that have linked data underneath.
Then there's the whole question of whether museums should bother publishing
individually or work to publish aggregate data. Developers are reluctant to
learn new structures and methods for each publisher, so there are benefits
to publishing either through one end point or with one agreed data standard,
but there's also a bigger overhead to this.
> Actually, this touches on point 4 below: does it really qualify as "linked
> data"
> if it is only "linkable" rather than actively linking to other
> data sources?
>
Good question - I'd say so, but I'm no expert. Anyone?
cheers, Mia
****************************************************************
For mcg information visit the mcg website at
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
To manage your subscription to this email list visit
http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|