I guess the major problem with linked data in libraries is that there is no real need for it; let's face it, the systems that exist today serve their purpose for the majority of use cases, and probably all of the actual use cases. We built the systems we made on sound foundations, and we keep them running because they do the job we want them to do.

Talking about linked data in this kind of environment isn't going anywhere. It's rather counter-productive, because changing the systems we have for linked-data-based systems is not cost effective, nor is it realistic. Currently, the linked data "system" does not actually exist; there are some "products", but nothing that does what a library wants them to do without prohibitively expensive development.

It's nevertheless tantalizing to imagine a world of linked data that makes it possible to find any information quickly and with a cool interface, and I'm sure that this is the kind of experience libraries are willing to pay handsomely for. Truthfully, this kind of thing is exactly what we're seeing from the major players in the systems marketplace; it's no coincidence that the likes of Ex Libris talk about linked data in positive terms — it has been seen as a way forward (generally and specifically — by the Library of Congress).

Contrast this however with the outpourings of the "SuperMARC" community — surely a pastiche of thinking within the library IT community — and you see an issue that isn't going away: people are satisfied with what they've got, because even if it's a grandparent, it still works for them. Any plausible change to the status quo is just an addition to what is already there, nothing more, nothing less. Take BIBSYS' assertion that the new library system from OCLC gives us "a system with all of the necessary functionality to run a library".

This is codification of the values and aspirations of libraries — it might seem ridiculous to many, but what is being said echoes the outcome of hundreds of focus groups in libraries around the world that have brainstormed "what do we need to do to be relevant". These sessions return results like "be present in Google", "be where the user is", "smart interface", "search everything at once". The thing is that the SuperMARC-ers are right, all of this is possible with current technology. It's current licensing that's the problem.

Looking at the many projects that people are working on at the moment, and the statements from the Library of Congress, you can clearly see that we're nearing the end of the first wave of linked data, where we collate and convert MARC records to linked data. The real problem is that we're doing this. We have assumed that the data is actually worth keeping. It isn't.

The record is the issue; the cohesive concept of a thing that is a manifestation of a work that can be described by reference to properties and values that were developed to help identify physical things in the real world don't translate well to the digital reality. Here, it's possible to go beyond the the physical and into the conceptual, to dig deep and find new relevancies, connections and contexts. In this sense, no work has been done (FRBR, by the way should simply be ignored because it isn't a useful model in theory or in practice as it builds on thinking that draws its hypotheses from the long tradition of library and information science).

I suggested a topic for LODLAM in San Francisco in July this year; "What are the objectives of linked open data for libraries, archives and museums? From the perspective of libraries, the objectives of providing metadata have traditionally been “finding, identifying, selecting and obtaining”; within other domains, I am sure that the same kinds of principles apply, however, there seems to be something lacking in these objectives seen from the context of the semantic web. What are the new objectives when creating semantic metadata? At NTNU, we think that contextualizing (what contexts surround the item, its facets), comparing, sharing are important, but there is surely more". No takers.

What's going on is a continuation of a theme, and the tune is all wrong, the stage is set for a different production; in fact, we're brewing beer. It's a real issue, because linked data offers nothing unless it is used in an appropriate way, and I don't think we're even close to finding out what this actually means.

Sure, if you're in a position to do it, using the linked data stack is a great idea — it makes for speedy development and has powerful logic, but it isn't a panacea of all things good, and just doing what you're doing now with linked data is not a good idea — there are better, more cost-effective ways of doing this. But, face fact: you aren't going to create a killer app this way.

What would make a killer app is having the time and dedication to go and reinvent what is bibliographic data, add the contextual information — not using algorithms (how do you know what to program?), but by hand — find the links that turn the data from "distributed library card" to "starting point for the rest of my career". I desperately want these things for libraries, but I don't see them happening anyplace.

When all that is said, we at NTNU have tried to create the data "the way it should be done", we have added contexts and created data-driven applications. The problem is that this isn't mainstream, it's backwater — we're alone. We have plans with other Norwegian institutions, but they struggle with the same issue.

So, tomorrow, I sign a contract that will see me leaving the library and move into industry to work with linked data; I passionately believe in linked data and openness, and I think we'll be doing great, great things. I'm excited, but I'm also down because I also love libraries and the work we do. So long and thanks for all the MARC.