I had the opportunity to interview Myung-Ja Han, the Head of the Acquisitions and Cataloging Services department at the University of Illinois Library, who is highly passionate and skilled. This interview focused on library data, particularly Linked Data, and it was truly informative.

1. Please provide a brief explanation of two Linked Data projects you have undertaken.

We actually did a lot of experimentations with our special collections. One is digitized special collections (The Motley Collection of Theatre and Costume Design & Portraits of Actors, 1720-1920) supported by Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the other one Emblematica Online was supported by National Endowment for the Humanities. We would like to see at least how can we better connect these special resources to the web and if we can use Linked Data to help us and if so how hard and how easy and what kind of things that we can do more and better.

Both projects focus on connecting discovery services and preservation services. The discovery service’s purpose is to enable access to library data on the web and facilitate library services that leverage web resources. In projects like Emblitica Online, which is a digital humanities project, the involvement of subject specialists is crucial, and they need to have a passion for this project. The successful collaboration between subject specialists and librarians played a pivotal role in its success.

2. What are challenges and lessons learned?

The main challenge facing Linked Data in libraries is sustainability. Currently, Linked Data is limited to prototype development in many libraries, and sustaining and supporting it requires ongoing commitment. However, this commitment is lacking because Linked Data is not yet fully integrated with library data services.

Three key insights can be observed in this regard. Firstly, leveraging external resources through Linked Data services can provide contextual information to users, leading to a more enriched experience. Secondly, name reconciliation work remains important. Finally, there are additional opportunities to explore in leveraging the Semantic Web.

It is important to always consider “How well do we know our users?” and “What do we know about them?” We should carefully think about whether our efforts to enhance our services might confuse our users instead.

3. What is your opinion on the shift in library data formats from MARC21 to BIBFRAME?

Regarding the format of library data, I believe that it is unnecessary to create a completely new format like BIBFRAME. Instead, we can keep the metadata editor simple and focus on the output. It is important to note that maintaining and supporting a new format like BIBFRAME is the biggest challenge, especially when considering the transition from AACR2 to RDA which has taken over 30 years. Therefore, we should find ways to integrate the key information into existing formats like schema.org, which is already being used by search engines.

4. What are your plans for library data in the future?

We are planning to enhance the Metadata Maker developed by the University of Illinois Library by adding several elements to ensure a more robust output. Currently, the Metadata Maker consists of multiple modules, but it only utilizes Linked Data for monographs. We aim to expand this functionality to include other types of resources. Additionally, we want to map the library data to schema.org to enable indexing by web search engines. We are also interested in exploring various efforts to establish connections between the library and other web entities.