This Confluence wiki site, maintained by DuraSpace prior to the recent merger with LYRASIS, will transition from the duraspace.org domain to the lyrasis.org domain on Saturday, Nov 16 beginning at approximately 7pm ET. A period of downtime of 2-3 hours is expected. After the transition, this wiki will be available at https://wiki.lyrasis.org/. All links to duraspace.org wiki pages will be redirected to the correct lyrasis.org URL. If you have questions prior to or following the transition please contact: wikihelp@lyrasis.org.
Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Next »

Background

What makes a good use case?

  • which of them is really linked data enabled, vs. what you could do with MARC if put in a big database
  • what can be done easily with linked data, even if it could be done without
  • examples tying library data together with other information
  • and working across institutions

Implementation Question:

What intersections of our data sources will be strong enough to support compelling use cases?

Goals

We need to choose a key set of use cases that address the challenges articulated in the grant proposal for the project. Here are some specific points that we want to make sure that the use cases address:

  1. Pragmatic value. They have real value to our core constituencies: librarians, researchers, teachers, students, etc.
  2. Community added-value. They leverage the unique value that librarians and scholars add to materials when they select, annotate, or reference the resources.

  3. Cross-institutional data. They clearly demonstrate the value in combining data from our three different institutions - ideally in a way that shows how that value will grow as more institutions join in.
  4. Leverage existing data and services. They leverage existing efforts in this space
  5. Integration into the Web. They show how research libraries can integrate with existing popular and useful Web sites and services, e.g., Wikipedia.
  6. Cross-discipline. They show examples from a variety of disciplines.
  7. Help core missions. They demonstrate value for teaching and learning, and research.
  8. Multi-data. They cover a broad range of scholarly information resource types.
  9. Unusual data. They show how non-traditional data can be useful.
  10. Media "photogenic": They clarify to the mainstream media the value of LOD and this project, and excite that media about the prospects
  11. They show interesting ways to use the aggregated data for analysis or visualization.
  12. They take advantage of data on how the materials are being used.

We need to be careful to not put in effort in areas where other projects are already working.

Works: Curation

Virtual Collections (3,11,35)

Build a virtual collection from items across institutions, regardless of their original collection and metadata.

Metadata Assignment (24)

Assign information about an item in a Linked Data way, such as subject/tag.  A potential implementation strategy for designating virtual collections.

Works: Discovery

Discovery of Related Items (12,19,21,22,23,25,29,38,42)

Using the graph of relationships between items, improve:

  • discovery algorithms
  • discovery interfaces

Based on information about the Items:

  • geo/temporal provenance and topic
  • authorship
  • other metadata

Persons

Highlight specific people (6)

Given a set of people, highlight them when they are referenced from Items (eg faculty authors)

Display relationships between people (9)

Given a set of people and their relationships to each other, display the relationships in relevant contexts

Display intersection of metadata about people (42)

Given a set of people and their relationships to other objects, use the metadata from those objects to generate sets of people and display those sets in relevant contexts 

Usage

Research guided by community usage

Guided in collection building by usage



  • No labels