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.
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 bwig@loc.gov
} Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic
Access
} Library of Congress
} 101 Independence Avenue, SE
} Washington, DC 20540
} (202) 707-5137 FAX--(202) 707-6269
31