Wiggins-7-jun15
0 likes2,506 views
The Library of Congress engaged in linked data efforts starting in 2009 and created its Linked Data Service. It contracted with Zepheira to develop the initial BIBFRAME model and vocabulary 1.0 with input from early experimenters. The Library of Congress conducted a pilot of BIBFRAME from October 2015 to March 2016 with 40 staff cataloging in both MARC and BIBFRAME. The pilot helped develop BIBFRAME and identified areas for improvement. The Library of Congress will continue to refine BIBFRAME 2.0 and conduct additional testing.
Wiggins-7-jun15
- 1. http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building 1
- 2. Assessment and Next Steps June 15, 2016
- 3. Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Library of Congress
- 4. } LC engaged in linked data for several years } First foray was sharing its authority data } LC created its Linked Data Service (id.loc.gov) in 2009 } Library of Congress Subject Headings offered as first set of authority data } Name authorities and various vocabularies followed } Id.loc.gov played integral role in BIBFRAME Pilot 4
- 5. } BIBFRAME’s beginnings were some four years ago } LC pressured for years to develop a replacement for MARC } LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control’s On the Record was final push for LC } The time was never quite right for a structure that was considered feasible } With introduction of linked data LC saw a viable structure 5
- 6. } LC contracted with Zepheira to develop model that became BIBRAME model vocabulary 1.0 } Development of BIBFRAME 1.0 accomplished with input from community } Initially, LC had collaboration of early experimenters, including—Princeton, George Washington, Cornell, National Library of Medicine, and Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, British Library 6
- 7. } This initial work and collaboration helped LC stabilize the BIBFRAME and vocabulary 1.0 } This work continued for several years } By late 2014/early 2015, made determination that LC mount a pilot to test ◦ efficacy of BIBFRAME and the ◦ ability of cataloging staff to create bibliographic data in BIBFRAME structure 7
- 8. } Ca. 40 staff identified for the Pilot } Mix of catalogers and technicians that catalog ◦ Materials in all languages, scripts and formats ◦ Monographs, serials, cartographic materials, music (notated), sound recordings, moving image, and two-dimensional art (prints and photographs) } Process materials they regularly receive 8
- 9. } Required to catalog in both the MARC 21 format and BIBFRAME ◦ Dual data creation affected the participants’ normal production ◦ No attempt to address the impact of BIBFRAME on production 9
- 10. } Pilot participants were pioneers } Working in a system still under development } Attended 16 hours of instruction on Semantic Web, Linked Data, and use of the BIBFRAME Editor } COIN—Cooperative & Instructional Programs Division staff members provided the training } Training materials available from the Cataloger’s Learning Workshop website http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/bibframe/ 10
- 11. } Module 1: Introduction to the Semantic Web and Linked Data (four and a half hours) } Module 2: Introduction to BIBFRAME Tools (two and half hours) } Taught using PowerPoint slides, Quizzes, and Exercises 11
- 12. } Module 3 consisted of two Units: ◦ Unit 1—recap of major concepts of the Semantic Web and Linked Data – considered necessary because of significant time gap since pilot participants first exposed to these concepts, and because some found the concepts themselves difficult to understand ◦ Unit 2— – primary goal to provide hands-on training on use of BIBFRAME Editor to create BIBFRAME “records” – secondary goals to explain Pilot ‘ground rules’ and to prepare participants to be effective testers and provide helpful feedback. ◦ 12
- 13. } Module 3,Unit 1— ◦ 40-slide PowerPoint presentation. } Unit 2— ◦ 51-page manual, with plentiful screen captures to show participants what they should see at the various stages of working in the Editor 13
- 14. } Participants began using the BIBFRAME Editor immediately after training in its use } Entered data into both the LC ILS (Voyager) and the BIBFRAME Editor ◦ Created MARC records in LC ILS first } Weekly ‘de-briefings’ held to help the participants, instructors, and developers } Midway through Pilot, participants instructed to enter data into BIBFRAME Editor and then create MARC record in LC ILS 14
- 15. } Searching was available to primary datasets on LC Linked Data Service Authorities and Vocabularies web site, id.loc.gov ◦ Initially LC/NACO Authority File and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) ◦ Later, additional datasets from id.loc.gov were made searchable from the Editor } More datasets were searchable via the Editor, as well ◦ including some controlled lists from Resource Description & Access (RDA) 15
- 16. } Into the Pilot, ability to access previously input BIBFRAME descriptions was possible } Descriptions could not be edited } Descriptions created in BIBFRAME did not constitute a database of record } Descriptions not distributed as part of the Library’s cataloging distribution service 16
- 17. } No changes made in workflow } Participants were still creating MARC records in the LC ILS } Not operating in production mode } Data created will eventually be discarded 17
- 18. } Good understanding of RDA needed for working in the BIBFRAME Editor } Need to converse using RDA terminology rather than MARC coding } Participants wanted to see and analyze BIBFRAME RDF serializations created during Pilot } Reinforced training objectives on the Semantic Web and Linked Data presented in Modules 1 and 2 18
- 19. } Phase One of BIBFRAME Pilot lasted six months (October 1, 2015 – March 31, 2016) } Pilot participants continuing to catalog in BIBFRAME Editor to retain skills } BIBFRAME data continue to be created and analyzed } After LC Pilot BIBFRAME 2.0 is underway, data created using BIBFRAME 1.0 model to be discarded 19
- 20. } Network Development and MARC Standards Office—NDMSO created technical components that supported Pilot } Included most of LC’s MARC bibliographic records transformed into ◦ BIBFRAME descriptions ◦ controlled authority and term lists with URIs ◦ input editor for the participants to use 20
- 21. } Pilot’s focus was input of data and impact on catalogers } Function of end user access was not studied } System did not support ◦ recording of holdings ◦ acquisitions processes ◦ description distribution functions } 2,000 records created in the Pilot made available in a bulk download file 21
- 22. } Pilot participants submitted over 2,000 descriptions to the system } Eight profiles for different resource types established to assist with input: ◦ monographs, serials ◦ notated music ◦ Cartographic materials ◦ BluRay DVD, Audio CD ◦ 35mm Feature Film ◦ prints/photographs 22
- 23. } Modeling of Works and Instances was clear } Participants generally just looked for the RDA rule and viewed it or put in the value } How it was packaged by the BIBFRAME model was not that important to know } Underscored the dichotomy between the FRBR/RDA and BIBFRAME models 23
- 24. } Dropdowns and lookups were popular features } They improved ◦ accuracy of data strings ◦ provided the data linking URIs without keying them ◦ made input more efficient 24
- 25. } BIBFRAME editor used labels ◦ closely synchronized with RDA ◦ linked to key RDA rules for an element } Participants found the labels and RDA rule links very helpful } Treatment of Expressions in BIBFRAME model required additional explanation } BIBFRAME model considers an Expression a Work with links between the RDA Work and RDA Expression 25
- 26. } Searching as implemented was adequate but could be improved } Look ahead fields were very useful for known item searching } Some “what do you have like this” searching was helpful } Known item searching usually sufficed 26
- 27. } Decision made to simulate BIBFRAME environment } Required conversion of LC file of 18 million MARC bibliographic records to provide BIBFRAME file against which to catalog } 13.5 million records converted ◦ split into Work and Instance records – 13.4 million Work records – 13.85 Instance records } Transformation was credible, but a work in progress 27
- 28. } Good enough to illustrate Work/Instance separation, although not thoroughly tested in the Pilot } MARC Authority records needed by the catalogers already converted to RDF and loaded into the LC Linked Data Service } For Pilot, name authorities were changed from weekly load to daily load to provide up-to-date authority lookup } Providing input of new authority descriptions into the BIBFRAME system was desirable but could not be met in the timeframe 28
- 29. } Pilot achieved its aim and is considered a success } Input from catalogers participating in testing the system enabled those developing BIBFRAME to make considerable strides in its development } BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary ◦ released ◦ will form the basis of the next phase of a pilot in fall 2016—not before October 29
- 30. } LC will continue to refine BIBFRAME model and vocabulary 2.0 } LC, as member of LD4P—Linked Data for Production, will work with 5 institutions funded by a Mellon grant to test BIBFRAME 2.0 ◦ Stanford ◦ Cornell ◦ Columbia ◦ Harvard ◦ Princeton 30
- 31. } Beacher Wiggins [email protected] } Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access } Library of Congress } 101 Independence Avenue, SE } Washington, DC 20540 } (202) 707-5137 FAX--(202) 707-6269 31