Linked data Task Force | All | One of LDTF main questions is how might LDTF/DAWG collaboration work when campuses are not in Hyrax/Samvera? Each non-Hyrax campus is working with slightly (or greatly) different metadata application profiles. If working on LD enrichment for Hyrax-focused metadata, should the CSU LDTF be aiming to help with general CSU standards and guidance in this area as well? LDTF exploring how linked data can serve the CSU’s - not ULMS-specific. Examples of LDTF work: LD study groups, CSU linked data survey DRC/DAWG can provide guidance for campuses using the CSU shared repositories and for data that is harvested into these systems.
Has DAWG evaluated/know yet, what adherence to a single thesaurus there is among each controlled vocabulary element set in the CSU digital archives model/emerging data set? The current thinking, in LDTF, which some of its members could help with: Geonames , LSCH, FAST, AAT reconciliation via API (OpenRefine currently with Wikidata only) First pass at Metadata Application Profile after DSpace metadata analysis - lots of different uses of controlled vocabularies across the board. Will need to determine where and how to enforce adherence to vocabs. In which instances is this most important? Possible DAWG/LDTF collab?
Any other? In addition to leveraging outside LD to enhance our records, how do we share the unique data that we create? What are other institutions doing? Interesting project examples? Digital Scriptorium SDSU building project
|