1. Mapping Scholarly Debate UC Scholarly debates – Authors, Books, Articles, Schools, Debate subjects – Book A (author X) …… Book B (author B) – Reacts_to, rebuttal_of, disagree_with, … Owner: William Waites, University of Edinburgh / Open Knowledge Foundation Goal – 1. capture evolution of thought – 2. … (reuse schemas/vocs ?) Target audience: students, researchers Schemas: FRBR-like (Work, Manifestation), FOAF

2. Mapping Scholarly Debate UC Existing work: Bibliographica.org, 73977 persons, 53106 manifestations and 53106 worksBibliographica.org … but appears that no relations defined … didn’t find the actual RDF schemas used (should be in UC definition!) Cluster with: Digital Text Repository UC, NDNP UC, Publishing 20th Century Press Archives UC

3. Some observations on UCs Some UCs document existing work (EP UC) Others do not (MSD UC) Many cases clear need for shared metadata schema Not so clear where linked data comes in; reuse of other vocabularies or not? Else it’s Open Data, not Linked Open Data Goals not very diverse; – reuse of vocabs – Linking to other datasets Sometimes LLD principles are written down in application or goal section Some UCs are really abstract – UC Digital Preservation – UC Component Vocabularies – UC Language Technology – UC Recollection Isn’t UC International Registry for Authors about creating a new vocabulary?