On 17 Mar 00, G. Baltussen writes:
> As much as in XML the amount of tagging tends to outweigh the amount
> of data, in MARC the amount of possible tagging and possible data
> tends to outweigh the needs of our users and of library
> administration.
It is surprising to see something criticized because of its potential
(which nobody needs to make full use of).
> Also MARC has an oldfashioned way of handling codes
> as tags and subfields and regretably most library systems concur to
> this in IT-chronology almost medieval fashion.
>
No wonder. The design dates back to the 60s.
> Isn't it about time to reconsider a lot of what we do in cataloging
> and data-entry to make our databases leaner, meaner and better
> equiped for futere users?
>
That's not a new issue, and many have tried that over the years. Many have
come up with meaner designs, but I have still to see a better one, all
things considered.
If XML is the answer, I'll be among the first to embrace it, and I cannot
wait to see it proved. But seriously: XML is a vehicle for communication, it
was not designed for efficient data storage and indexing in databases. Just
as well you might reach for a hammer to drive in screws.
Regards, B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail [log in to unmask]
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail [log in to unmask]
|