I found a recent post from Karen Coyle’s blog worth a read. Here’s the quotation that caught my eye:
Each of these efforts takes a single library standard and, using RDF as its underlying technology, creates a full metadata schema that defines each element of the standard in RDF. The result is that we now have a series of RDF silos, each defining data elements as if they belong uniquely to that standard. We have, for example, at least four different declarations of “place of publication”: in ISBD, RDA, FRBR and MODS, each with its own URI. There are some differences between them (e.g. RDA separates place of publication, manufacture, production while ISBD does not) but clearly they should descend from a common ancestor
Via Coyle’s Information (emphasis added)
The post’s title is “Bibliographic Framework: RDF and Linked Data” and it’s prompted me to start reading about RDF in a more focussed way. My suspicion is that successful linked data efforts—including efforts to expose library catalog data to the web—will require that siloed metadata schemas be avoided.