Making the most of data: on new possibilities when researchers and libraries produce re-usable linked data

or

On making reports or making self-reporting data


Jeffrey C. Witt (Loyola University Maryland) @jeffreycwitt


Universit├Ąts Bibliothek Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, September 17, 2019

Slide Deck: http://jeffreycwitt.com/slides/2019-09-17-leipzig-transforming-libraries

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

### Library Cataloguers and Textual Scholars are in the business of creating similar data.
### But the WAY we create this data is not Neutral.

1. Observation and Reporting

2. Creation of Self-Reporting Data

Types of Data in Library Catalogues
### Types of Data in Text Editions

Some Problems with the Observation and Reporting Method

1. Needless Redundancy

2. Lack of Transparency

### The Power of Self-Reporting Data #### Reifying Data into Curatable Resources
### Making use of the data we are already creating
### On-Demand Citations
### On-Demand Text Comparisons
### On-Demand Image Comparison
### Reusing data to build new apps to address new research questions
### Reusing scholarly data in library catalogues
### Some final reflections
** Do libraries and scholars have the patience to create this data? ** Creating self-reporting data initially takes more time to create, but it scales better in the long term. ** Do we have the kinds pressures and incentives pushing people toward long term results over short term payoffs? **
** Are libraries really interested in *re-incorporating / re-using * data provided by third party scholars or research groups? ** * Research groups often work at a level of micro-granularity, while libraries and museums often work at macro-level. * This often creates a kind of one way street. Scholars use the macro data and then develop micro data. * How can we build systems and **releationship** where this micro data can be re-incorporated/re-connected to library macro-data. * Libraries cannot deal with idiosyncratic standards and protocols from individual research groups. * So, how can we create usable standards across research domains that nevertheless allow the creation and preservation of micro, domain specific data? * This leads to a third question...
A lot of coordination between institutions and scholarly groups is required to create the kind of interoperability decribed and envisioned here. ** How can scholars and representatives of *smaller domain specific research groups* be a part of the conversation about standards and ontology creation rather than merely receiving the decisions of larger institutions? **