...
- PROV Ontology
- Prov-O Ontology on this the VIVO wiki
- PAV (Provenance, Authoring, and Versioning) (on Google Code)
...
While our library catalogs are very likely the largest single sources of metadata, each partner university maintains a large number of digital collections representing a diversity of subject domains, size, and complexity. Several of our use cases involve connecting catalog data with these non-MARC sources, not only to provide a more unified search interface, but to be able to interconnect and cross-references sources that for now remain almost entirely separate. The benefits go both ways, and the addition of sources outside the traditional library domain brings in yet more possibilities for value-added services enhanced by entity recognition and external links. Prime examples of these non-library sources are Stanford's Profiles (CAP Network software), Harvard's Faculty Finder (Harvard Catalyst Profiles software), and Cornell's VIVO (VIVO software and VIVO-ISF Ontology ).
- Getty Vocabularies as Linked Open Data
- The DBpedia Ontology (2014)
- Linked Data in VRA Core 4.0: Converting VRA XML Records into RDF/XML (Jeff Mixter)
- PBcore – Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project
Annotations and virtual collections
The first two use cases address user tagging and the ability of librarians or others to curate potentially very large collections of library resources through annotations external but linked to the bibliographic metadata. Existing ontologies were identified that support annotations and the assembly and ordering of individual resources into collections.
- W3C Open Annotation Data Model
- Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange | ORE Specification - Vocabulary
- LD4L Use Case 1.1 - Triples Examples
- LD4L Use Case 1.2 - Triples Examples
Usage data
The fifth group of use cases explore including usage data to supplement library discovery interfaces and to inform collection review and additions. Here the team first explored a very granular model for capturing usage information from circulation-related events and other direct user interactions with library resources. On further investigation, however, this data proved not only to be difficult to come by but fraught with concerns about privacy, even when stripped of any directly identifying information. Later discussions have focused on the compilation and use of a simple stack score as a measure potentially more comparable across institutions despite differences in size, discipline, population makeup, and other factors.
Expressing bibliographic metadata to support discovery
The LD4L use cases largely target specific ways to supplement traditional library catalog metadata, whether through linkages to external identities and resources, connecting catalog records with other digital collections, adding usage metrics, or annotations. Some go on to suggest new functionality by leveraging this new "library graph"