Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1955903766.331.1711728100341@lyrasis1-roc-mp1> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_330_1434066917.1711728100341" ------=_Part_330_1434066917.1711728100341 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
The institutional projects are focused either upon the processin= g of special, local collections or the conversion of local workflows for mo= re traditional materials. A library=E2=80=99s workflows are often particula= r to that institution. They develop organically from a complex mix of insti= tutional policies, vendor services, choice of ILS (and its capabilities), a= nd accepted standards (RDA, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging=E2=80=99= s Bibliographic Standard Record (BSR), etc.). The goals, then, of the insti= tutional projects are two. The first is more straightforward. Although iden= tical workflows cannot be developed for all institutions, standards for the= output of those workflows can be. This meets a library=E2= =80=99s basic need to be able to ingest and use metadata created at other i= nstitutions. By focusing on different subject domains (e.g., cartographic, = music, rare books), the group is trying to standardize the metadata output = for the most common types of resources they will need to process. The secon= d is more complex. Two institutions (The Library of Congress and Stanford) = have chosen to look at the conversion of their local workflows to linked da= ta as their institutional project. As all workflows are unique to that inst= itution, they can be considered =E2=80=9Cinstitutional.=E2=80=9D However, t= he benefits of these projects are numerous. First, they will demonstrate th= at the conversion of a workflow from acquisition to discovery is possible. = They will identify the separate elements of the workflow that must be consi= dered/converted. They will produce solutions to the various elements of the= ir workflows that can become models for how other institutions could approa= ch similar issues. And as they work through these workflows, they can do it= in consultation with the other LD4P members so that common standards and p= rotocols can be developed even if explicit workflows cannot be copied from = institution to institution.
Early on, the members of LD4P discussed how best to coordinate their pro= jects. Of prime concern was whether more synergy could be gained from worki= ng in similar subject domains or, instead, to focus on individual instituti= onal interests. In the end, the group decided to favor institutional intere= sts as institutional by-in and support would be key to local success. In ad= dition, a major differentiator for LD4P as a project is learning how to wor= k together in a networked, distributed environment. The development of this= environment is independent of subject domain and so this helped to reinfor= ce our decision.
That being said, a tremendous number of intersections have appeared acro= ss the individual projects binding us closely together. Columbia has chosen= to investigate the extension of BIBFRAME for art objects as Stanford looks= to ingest the metadata from its art museum, The Cantor , and both will hav= e some intersection with the Library of Congress=E2=80=99s exploration of t= he use of BIBFRAME with its prints and photographs collection. Music appear= s as a theme in the project proposals from Cornell, The Library of Congress= , and Stanford. Harvard has included a Stanford metadata expert in their ex= ploration of geospatial metadata and BIBFRAME. The Library of Congress is w= orking on the development of BIBFRAME 2.0 as Columbia, Cornell, and Stanfor= d work on expanding its use into three new subject domains. The Library of = Congress is also exploring the use of RDA and BIBFRAME, something that will= be of use to all members=E2=80=99 catalog departments. Princeton=E2=80=99s= project will build upon the annotation work developed for the first Linked= Data for Libraries grant. And Stanford=E2=80=99s Tracer Bullet projects ca= n help inform similar workflows at the other LD4P institutions.