Das ist doch ein eigener Punkt neben der Wissensvermittlung. Statt Diskurs würde es führ die Lehre auch reichen wenn jemand einfach vorgibt was wichtig ist.

Die Aussage klingt hier plausibel aber ohne Blick auf andere Fachgebiete kann ich das nicht so nachvollziehen. Vielleicht mal Bibliothekar*innen fragen welche aktuellen Lehrbücher es in den verschiedenen Wissenschaften so gibt und ob sie weniger geworden sind?

Wurden denn in der Vergangenheit die Lehrbücher fortgeschrieben? Die dargelegten Phasen zeigen doch, dass es auch bisher keine Kontinuität gab.

Ok, die gibt es bei Wikipedia auch nicht, lediglich vom Anspruch her.

=Wikipedia

Das ist viel und erinnert mich an den Anspruch von Wikipedia "das Wissen der Welt" zu sammeln. Ich bezweifle, dass je ein solch vollständiges Lehrbuch existiert. Das einzige was da heranreicht ist Knuths "The Art of Computer Programming", was aber kein Lehrbuch sondern ein Handbuch ist.

what about digital entities? This rarely refers to a storage medium, does it?

Yes, that the mayor problem of the model.

Reading the definitions, the "Manifestation" looks dispensable or disconnected at least. Work, expression and item are connected:

• work is content
• expression is signs conveying content
• item carries signs

But how does manifestation make use of signs?

For what reason? To support model-theory? Wikidata supports people, not theories!

why?

how about both?

This is a very strong assumption.

How about practical or semiotic considerations? Language is not primarily logical, ontological or semantic?

No. Types are just sets of things.

Why is this centered? Better left-align as the rest of the page.

Eigener Unterpunkt "Instances"

Nur auf die Deutsche Seite. /cocoda/ wäre die wichtigste Seite um sie auch in Deutsch anzubieten, oder?

Pfeil-nach-oben davor

dito Quellcode: Rahmen, Hintergrund, Schatten o.Ö.

Screenshots brauchen einen Rahmen, Schatten o.Ä. Effekt um sich vom Layout abzuheben

Link weg, sonnst als ein Link "VZG Dienste" gelesen

Zwei Buttons: "Anwendung starten" (direkt zu Cocoda release version) und "über Cocoda" (bisheriger link)

Besser alles auf eine Seite statt Unterseiten. Sowohl Unterpunkte als auch Unterseiten ist komisch

Statt deutsche und US-Flagge für die Sprachauswahl besser Sprache "English" und "Deutsch" (vgl. https://usersnap.com/blog/design-language-switch/)

• Partners vor Contact nach Rechts verschieben
• Beim dropdown die Einträge linksbündig

There is no "self-declaring data" but several promises such as XML, and RDF. Better refer to an existing standard. I'd recommend using URIs but these tend to become long

This only shifts the problem one level up unless you define where the method/system-identifier come from. For instance why orcidIDinstead of ORCID, https://orcid.org/ or some other string?

Is this an instance of JSON as described below but without <json> in front?

Why [ on each line end , at the end, so it's no valid JSON?

Starting with [and ending with , this is no complete JSON.

Repeatable? Can a standoff property be part of multiple layers?

Why not based on a W3C Web Annotation Data Model? See https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#fragment-selector and RFC 5147.

Could be omitted if EndIndex is optional instead

I think this is also how hypothes.is does it.

why not a timestamp instead?

So this is not a string anymore but a more complex data structure!

how is plain text defined? A sequence of Unicode characters in normalized form? which normalization? this is essential to get stable character positions!

See https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/standoff-markups/2731/10 for background on standoff properties and Unicode

as first called for by Nelson (1997) in Embedded Markup Considered Harmful

to keep (establish) a connection between existing ontologies and the ontologies in Codex, it should be possible to assign equivalent URIs to concept entities.

To concatenate two pieces of text use a structure entity that links both or a text annotation that directly links both?

Is the empty string allowed in a text entity?

hyperlink?

Looks a lot like Wikidata qualifiers

thus building an ontology

eventually this makes the set of entities and meta-relations a knowledge graph. Why not use this established terminology? A Graph databases is a technical method to store graphs, including knowledge graphs.

The canonical size does not allow percentage values, does it?

This could be anything. How about dublin core element set?

Location of what?

Why? Better "identifiers (DOI, ISBN, handle...)" instead.

There is some research in link types and citation types to build on, e.g. https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html

An argument for content-based identifiers. I think it's wanted to link different versions of a document with each other to allow for updates

Deep links via content locators, see https://github.com/jakobib/hypertext2019#readme

Which is what information? What information is actually needed for citation?

I doubt so, unless emacs and vim are also counted as IDEs. IDEs are useful but they build on tools which can be used independently (editor, compiler, debugger...).

We could index it in Wikidata as part of WikiCite.

That's basically SKOS but could also be expressed in another format, e.g.:

{
  "Name of glossary term": {
    "definition": "...",
    "relationship": ["other term"]
  },
  "Name of glossary term number two": {
    "definition": "...",
    "relationship": ["other term"]
  }
}

There are thousands of citation styles defined at https://citationstyles.org/. Either reference a style or use a subset of CSL to specificy the style (instead of inventing your own citation style definition language).

I don't understand the use case of including this information.

In condense CSL-JSON this would be:

{"author":[{"family":"Engelbart","given":"Douglas Carl"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1962,7]]},"title":"AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT – A Conceptual Framework","type":"article"}

institution is not supported by citation formats, so not included here. title: AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT – A Conceptual Framework "type": "article" \ ~~~

What does this mean? Is the source build of multiple data elements such as name and date? Can it be any arbitrary string?

Any choice of a metadata format consists of two aspects:

1. serialization format (CSV, XML, YAML, JSON, RDF/Turtle, Cusztom...)
2. semantics (which fields, hierarchy, ontology...)

The most common serialization format is JSON so this seems as best choice. To save space, JSON5, a less strict superset of JSON syntax might be allowed.

The data format semantic are likely custom but interoperability with existing data models is recommended.

"in the style of" means it is not BibTeX but requires a custom parser which is a barrier of adoption.

In the spirit of Open Science I'd first make code public before talking about it. Unfortunately this is not academic standard yet, but as a reviewer I'd reject all works describing new software without actually making the software available

Looks like the whole approach could easily be changed to from BibTeX to a more standardized format (CSL JSON, RDF/Turtle, or JSON-LD). These formats can better be converted to BibTeX (see for instance https://citation.js.org/) than the other way round

Have a look at Citation Stylesheet Language. If the bibliographic data is available in (or convertible to) CSL JSON, the formatting can be chosen by readers.

There is a whole movement to get beyond the PDF for academic documents (e.g. Scholarly Markdown, interactive documents...). PDF is a dead end.

If augmented reader applications are needed anyway, why build on an outdated, limited technology to express metadata (BibteX) instead of RDF? The metadata could visibly be put in RDF/Turtle or JSON-LD format.

This seems to be the major difference of this approach to other methods of embedding metadata in documents.

A reviewer noted the SHA-1 as bad idea, "since these are not reversible in a computational feasible way and also could generate collisions" and rasked why not to "use the variable names from above? (I.e., 'take d2, insert at c2, ...'.". I should better introduce SHA-1 in a second step.

As noted by a reviewer the point made here is difficult to follow. This sentence should be extended withbackground information.

See http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0030.html. Unfortunately Merkle-Hashes are not widely used within the Torrent network.

See https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/multihash and https://github.com/multiformats/multihash. This looks promising but not cleanly seperated from other goals and it's lacking an URI representation.

Should be no problem. See copy-on-write file systems for implementations.

Why not? The commit can include a link to the original content. This would still create new addresses for each modification of a document.

What's the basic problem here? A document should be addressable under the same identifier despite being changed over time. Depending on your notion of "document" this could be impossible (see https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2008.14504503143)

In this case the address is delegated to another authority to look up the current file content.

Only a problem if edits independently take place at different places.

So the content address changes only if the file content changes. This is no problem if files are never changed.

A name that links to a file is just an example of meta-data.

What did he say?

Hopefully this will not change too fast!

Yes, that's what I do when doing quality work on the taxonomy (with the tool wdtaxonomy)

See http://wikicite.org/statistics.html for similar phases and events better analysed by history instead of calculations.

I guess the the average values are spoiled by outliers. A look at distribution would be interesting instead of average and median value only.

I'm curious about the depth distribution to compare my findings on other classification systems, including Wikipedia categories: https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0604036

This only includes properties of data-type item?! It should be made more clear because the majority of Wikidata classes has other data types.

I'd add number of classes with connected Wikipedia articles because these provide definition and context

A similar study on metrics and evaluation of classifications, taxonomies, thesaurus and other knowledge organization systems would be interesting!

Other aspects of Wikidata ontology quality can also be connected to editing activities but this cannot be measure from the Wikidata data dumps. It would need to take into account external data such as applications that make use of Wikidata (Histropedia, Wikipedia instances...)

This applies to universal KG in particular. Domain specific KGs can have any level of complexity - can they still be called knowledge graphs then?

Wikidata differs from typical KG as it is not build on top of classes (entity types). Any item (entity) can be connected by any property. Wikidata's only strict "classes" in the sense of KG classes are its data types (item, lemma, monolingual string...).

Maybe add same examples of DBMS?

It also introduced bank account numbers, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Recording_Machine,_Accounting

The Venetian Republic which lasted a millennium is famous for its archival practice. It virtually documented everything.

So wie Zugang zu Trinkwasser und Gesundheitsversorgung?!

KIs können keine Verantwortung übernehmen, das können nur Menschen als ethische Wesen!

Kant über künstliche Intelligenz

and in libraries

Thanks for this paragraph!

amen.

Note that the Liskov substitution principle does not apply to things like fruits and bananas but about our concepts of this things. The world is not made of categories and sub-categories but humans structure and describe the world this way.

There may be a subtle difference between "is about" and "represents" but nevermind

In my PhD thesis I summarized it as "methods, technologies, standards, and languages exist to structure and describe data" and identified general patterns in this ways to structure and describe data.

Nope. If we remove metadata type 2, e.g. "LastUpdatedTime", from a piece of data, still there is a time when the piece of data was updated. The information about this time is just not stored (=made explicit). The same applies to type 1 metadata with explicit schemas, data types etc. and implicit assumptions about the structure of data.

Well, we can, but in these case the data lacks metadata for proper understanding or processing. For instance we could write and store a name as string e.g "Luxemburg, Rosa", implicitly assuming the schema given, surname. Such schema, once documented, would be metadata.

that is the original use of the term in computer science as introduced by Philip Bagley (1968)

the concept is important in other domain as well but not under the name "metadata"

and in libraries as well

article should mention WikiCite and Wikidata

Rules of bibliographic data are often hidden in tools that make use of the data. Each tool implies its own rules to the data. Separating rules from tools (e.g. with schema files) can help but schemas are rarely applied to bibliographic data because they would uncover a lot of data as invalid/broken.

This would require a definition of "functionality" of bibliographic vocabularies.

Is KOS used as more general concept or as synonym to "vocabularies"?

There are some general guidelines but I doubt that mixing rules for three types of vocabularies is helpful. Otherwise we end up with general rules about any kind of data.

Ok, the article is not about vocabularies but about bibliographic vocabularies as defined here. In my words:

• individual bibliographic records
• bibliographic data formats and models
• terminologies and other controlled vocabularies

libraries have long been part of infrastructure run by public services. Interesting to compare with maintenance of other infrastructures. There seems to exist a general trend to prefer building new infrastructure instead of maintaining the existing one.

This term can be understood in many different ways. The article should better have given a definition of "vocabularies".

Regeln, Notationen, Mustern, Grammatiken...

Und wie hängen diese Darstellungen mit Kapitel 3.9 (S. 151-158) meiner Dissertation (http://aboutdata.org/) zusammen?

Dafür sollte schon die Überführung vorhandener Formen in Diagramme genügen! Hier bleibt der Artikel leider etwas unkonkret zumal Semantic Web und Conceptual Graphs eher aus der Informatik statt aus LIS kommen.

Hier wäre ein Überblick über vorhandene Visualisierungsen von Wissensorganisationssystemen hilfreich (Baumdiagramm u.A.)

Es handelt sich in beiden Fällen um Formalismen, d.h. Diagramme können gleichwertig zu formalen Sprachen behandelt werden.

Woher stammt der Begriff? Tobias Kraft (2014, S.98) führt diesen Artikel als Quelle an, obgleich der Begriff hier nur einmal verwendet wird.

yep

sorry for not having her on my active radar yet. She seems not to have spoken at SWIB yet (?)

amen

linked data does not "solve it" but at least it "addresses it".

Almost all I do with Linked Data is primarily introduction and enforcement of identifiers and creation of domain models. RDF is only secondary to express the outcome of this relevant work. Sure it could also be done with other technology but if it is done, RDF is a natural choice.

What do we pay them thousands of $€ for?! Why do we still buy this crap?

again, it's all about identifiers and sameness. Linked Data does not solve it but encourages it much more than other technology!

Isn't library science supposed to solve this problems? What do we actually have library science for?

that's why catalog records should regularly be updated and revised (which they are not)

If data is not updated it is not usage data but archived material

Even good APIs and good data does not help if libraries are incapable making use of it. See https://danelleorange.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/in-which-your-blogger-loses-it-about-the-library-field/

I fear that acquisition of library holdings or licenses is still unconnected to any use cases for their bibliographic data (if there are any at all)

There may be more efficient ways to solve the problems but without campaign it is hard to solve anything. Linked Data gives a reason to actually change something, it can also be used as door opener!

me too, and probably many people involved in library IT

Wikidata is not based on RDF internally but it can be mapped to RDF which is quite useful: https://query.wikidata.org/

Wikidata is not based on RDF by purpose but it is mapped to RDF which is quite useful: https://query.wikidata.org/

So the hype ended somewhere between 2010 and 2012. SWIB conference started in 2009.

Only that's the core benefit of Linked Data.

That's why certain kind of libraries (including me) like about Linked Data: it promotes best practice in catalouging.

I'd call it a data structuring language (comparable with other languages such as XML and JSON). Each data structuring languages implies its own data model - in the case of RDF this model is based on graphs.

It started with writing in structures such as lists, tables, cards, forms etc.

it hasn't.

facets?

"controlled vocabulary" might be a superclass of "knowledge organization system". All KOS are controlled vocabularies, aren't they?

Where is this knowledge base?!

The image can only be understood with the following explanation.

Well, LOD may be the most prominent technology and for good reason but it's just one possible technology among others.

KOS may also be used for other purpose such as learning aid!

Wikipedia should give an overview but it is also biased toward article authors. The current article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Organization_Systems is very brief and the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_system is mixed with articles about KOS in some languages. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6423319 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3622126 in Wikidata.

http://www.isvav.cz/projectDetail.do?rowId=DF13P01OVV013

See Nelson's reply to Tim Berners Lee about crediting him in Weaving the Web.

See Wikipedia article on the speech given by Ralph Waldo Emerson.