An investigation of linked data catalogue features in libraries, archives, and museums: a checklist approach

Purpose: In this study, the distinctive functional features of linked data (LD) catalogues were investigated to contrast with existing online public access catalogues (OPACs) and discovery systems using a checklist approach. The checklist was derived from a literature review and is composed of 10 items as follows: self-descriptive and dynamic content for resource description, linkage to external LD sources and online services, aggregation of knowledge contexts into knowledge graphs (KGs), URI-based link discovery, representation and query of LD relationships, URI-based serendipitous discovery, keyword recommendation, faceted limitation and browsing, visualization and openness of data. Design/methodology/approach: Ten functional features derived from the literature were checked against existing LD catalogues offered by libraries, archives and museums (LAMs). The LD catalogues were regarded as qualified subjects if they offered functional features that were distinct from current OPACs and discovery systems through URI-based enrichment and aggregation from various LD sources. In addition to individual organizations, LD union catalogues were also included. However, LD hubs, such as ISNI, OCLC WorldCat Entities, VIAF and Wikidata, were excluded. In total, six LD catalogues from LAMs were selected as subjects for examination. Findings: First, LD catalogues provide similar KG information through URI combination, and KGs also facilitate information serendipity, including social-document, intellectual, conceptual, spatial and temporal contexts and networks of corporate bodies, persons and families (CPFs). Second, LD catalogues have transformed the “seek first and browse later” paradigm into a “seek or browse” paradigm by refreshing the browsing function of traditional card catalogues with preview and new options to facilitate LD identification and discovery. Third, LD catalogues have refined keyword recommendation with the addition of the following fields: person’s title, CPF relationships, entity type and LD source. Lastly, a virtual union LD catalogue is offered. Research limitations/implications: The proposed checklist revealed the unique/improved functional features of LD catalogues, allowing further investigation and comparison. More cases from the fields of medicine, engineering science and so on will be required to make revisions to fine-tune the proposed checklist approach. Originality/value: To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to propose a checklist of functional features for LD catalogues and examine what the results and features of LD catalogues have achieved and are supported by from ontologies across LAMs. The findings suggest that LD provides a viable alternative to catalogues. The proposed checklist and results pave the way for the future development of LD catalogues and next-generation catalogues and also provide a basis for the future study of LD catalogues from other fields to refine the proposed checklist.