Folks:
An important design feature for the next generation bibliographic framework
will be "catalog code neutrality". Discussons about "main entry, yes or
no" should probably be left to the cataloging folks; the new framework
should theoretically support any approach.
Attempting to restrict the new framework to a reduced element set will
probably be a non-starter a) since Dublin Core already exists, and b) since
each and every data element in MARC has been championed over time and
declared vital by some group or other. Rather than setting ourselves the
task of winnowing up front, it would be wise to explore a data dictionary
approach and a robust element relationship framing / grouping
mechanism. Within the new framework various interest groups should be
free to define "profiles" (as has been the case, e.g., with METS, although
ideally more persuasively) that represent different catalog codes, best
practices, consortial agreements, etc.
BTW - I understand that W3C and others have recognized that the RDF triples
approach in fact lacks two important parameters that will need to be
defined before we go much further, namely namespace and provenance. So
we'll need "quintuples" instead of triples ;} (I'd like to hear more
about this from W3C.) David Weinberger in his keynote at the recent DLF
Forum expressed the view that the two most important innovations in our
field recently are linked data and namespaces, the latter because, he
believes, we can no longer impose single, broad-based schemas on the
information world and must give in to the idea that we will increasingly
and always have multiple, competing schemas and metadata standards. The
challenge then will be to build and maintain effective crosswalks.
___________________________________________
Stephen Paul Davis
Director, Libraries Digital Program
Columbia University Libraries
535 W. 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
email: [log in to unmask] phone: (212) 854-8584
___________________________________________
|