Weibel Lines

A Glimir of the Future

I spoke at VALA 2008, Australia’s biennial library conference, this past week. My participation was spurred initially by a request to deliver a paper on behalf of OCLC's Robin Murray, who could not attend. Soon after I agreed, the organizers invited me to stand in for a keynote speaker who had to cancel due to a family emergency. My first ever double-substitution conference.

The topic of the conference (Libraries: Changing Spaces, Virtual Places) gave me a perfect opportunity to combine two areas of interest – social networking and canonical identifiers – to present a case for how library systems might bring their assets into sharper Web focus.

OCLC has been exploring an important facet of this problem (canonical manifestation identifiers), and the VALA conference afforded a timely opportunity to announce this exploration.  The tentative name for these identifiers: Global Library Manifestation Identifiers, or Glimirs for short.

The community at large is increasingly aware of the importance of canonical identifiers for FRBR entities, especially Group I entities (Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items).  Existing OCLC numbers approximate manifestation identifiers, but ironically, as the database grows in scope, this rough correspondence is reduced through the loading of records in various languages.  These are not duplicates, but rather alternative institutional, regional, or language representations that point to a given resource.

The need for explicit manifestation identifiers thus becomes more evident. We need identifiers that are globally scoped, business neutral, usable by all, and managed in either a centralized or federated manner.  To the extent that such identifiers are canonical – that is, become the dominant identifier for a given asset, they increase the “URI equity” for library assets and will strengthen the library presence on the Web.

Interesting and challenging issues arise in the design of such identifiers and their supporting infrastructure.  Broad adoption will require a careful balance of use-cases, business issues, and community participation in meeting the need.  All of this in an environment already crowded with myriad special purpose identifiers.  OCLC is launching a pilot to explore these issues.  An early proposal has been shared with a number of technical and policy leaders and their valuable feedback will be used to strengthen the effort and move it to the next stage.

Stay tuned.

-----
A surfer at Torquay beach on the coast south of Melbourne.

Roll over, George

Jonathan Rochkind made some thoughtfully peevish comments on my previous post on RDA and the Futures report which drove me (perish the thought) back to the document itself.

...I'm confused by your apparent sympathy with the Working Group
recommendations to suspend RDA work...

...That recommendation seems to instead be based on the fantasy that we need to spend lots of time 'testing' FRBR, at the end maybe deciding that FRBR is no good at all

I don't see this in the recommendations at all.  What i read (in recommendation 4.2.1, p 29) is a clear mandate to resolve the existing ambiguities in the FRBR model in order to:

provide a more robust framework for the creation of  the resource description and access rules that will be used in the future to support a broad range of searching options (also on page 29). 

This is essential, and should be undertaken in the light of functional pragmatism, not ideology.  And certainly I agree with Jonathan that there is little time to waste.  The Futures report does not impugn the value of FRBR, but simply recognizes that we as a community do not agree about the importance of Expressions.  If it is critical in other ways, I missed it.

There is much stronger concern expressed in the report about the uncertainties of RDA, having to do with unsubstantiated benefits, alignment with existing standards, and the business case for it (see the bottom of page 24).

The subsequent recommendation (on the next page: 3.2.1) is stated more strongly than I might have chosen.  But the heading (Suspend Work on RDA) is elaborated with untils, and makes clear that useful work has been initiated with JSC and DCMI, and should continue.

But any assertion that debates going on on the RDA list represent progress towards these goals is, in my view, whistling past the graveyard.

And as for Jonathan's generous remark:

In fact, I feel like you've expressed well the argument that I'd want
to submit as comments to the Working Group

I know that at least one of them reads my blog ;-)

-----
yes... THAT George Boole... taken in Cork, at the end of the DCC meeting on persistent identifiers in 2004

In fact, specifically, THIS George Boole: http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n83-144364 (thanks, Thom)