LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  November 2011

BIBFRAME November 2011

Subject:

Offlist reactions to LC BIBFRAME statement

From:

Bernhard Eversberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:26:30 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

[For the record, copied from RDA-LIST, Nov. 4]

After the new master plan had been publicized, I've had exchanges with
various people about it. Mac referred to parts of this.  Enthusiasm
seems to be buildung up only very slowly, if at all...

A plan of this caliber ought to make a real splash in the community.
This is not just any old paper but a highly important one of
potentially far-reaching ramifications and a high impact on the quality
of the stuff we are working with, and thus the quality of our work,
from now on into an indefinite future. We all expect this quality to
improve, of course. Is this expectation justified by the Framework?

For one thing: that plan puts all eggs into one basket in committing
itself to Web standards like XML and RDF when, far and wide, there is
no large-scale bibliographic database that serves real-life library
work while being based on those. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What with Linked Data and RDF, those are offsprings of the Semantic
Web movement. In that arena, it is taken for granted that everything
comes for free. Content standards that are not openly available will
meet zero acceptance, may they use RDF or not. Of course, as was
discussed yesterday, the maintenance of an open standard takes a
long-term commitment. And for the data itself, what is OCLC's view on
the matter of liberal access via triplestores?
Now XML and RDF are not brand-new, and there certainly have been
lots of attempts to employ them in a grand way, even some at very
prestigeous places. Where are the success stories and the smoothly
running new-age engines based on the results? I'm asking this not
for the first time, but up until now got no answers in the forums.

Certainly, library systems need to be able to export and import XML
and RDF structures, side by side with many others. With the appropriate
tools and interfaces, library catalogs need never show anybody, except
those working on their upkeep, what their data looks like internally
or how they communicate among each other.
Even today, not every library system uses MARC internally. They just
all of them are able to swallow it and spew it out. (No mean feat,
I think, even today. Even something like VuFind takes in MARC and
nothing else.)
RDF triples in huge depositories called triplestores are static copies,
they need to be frequently refreshed. Is that realistic? Will it
really be useful and attractive for end-users if every library rig
up their own triplestores - or should OCLC do that for all of
them? Even now, OCLC could already be doing a *much* better job of
letting end-users access structured data in many useful ways,
XML structured and otherwise, out of the live database, not
a stale copy.
So: RDF is welcome as an addition, a special export product, but
not suitable for internal purposes and much too clumsy for
bulk communication. (JSON seems to be gaining ground now)

Secondly, there is no need for there to be one and *only* one exchange
standard. If some community needs some peculiar different format XYZ,
there may be tools that take in MARC and serve up XYZ. On a per record
or result set basis, web services can do that nicely, with no one
caring what the original was looking like. If we create more and
flexible standards for web services, these might solve or support most
of the requirements our catalogs of the future are expected to fulfil
for end-users and exchange, even with MARC inside. Web services are
flexible, easily extended and modified, with no need to tinker with
internal or communication structures.

And the plan itself says that MARC21 should be retained as an
exchange format for as long as necessary. So why not first create
an alternative format, test it up and down any number of years, improve
it or add yet another better design, and so on. And creating and
enhancing web services standards all the while, as the *primary means*
of access to library data from any outside agents. This can begin right
now and it has begun in many places, so one should look at ways to
coordinate and standardize some of this work. Eventually, let the
market decide, let the better concept win or let it take over step
by step as it gains acceptance. MARC may or may not fade away in
the process, sine ira et studio.
Anyway, two years to achieve "credible progress", in this field?
How's that defined, BTW, how will it be determined?
And what does it mean to "Demonstrate credible progress"? Which of the
many aspects of format features and uses will that include?
(About involvement of NISO, there's another thread in this forum)

And thirdly, data input and editing may use any modern techniques
available today, hiding all the ghastly stuff involved with MARC under
layers and subwindows of pulldowns and radio buttons and plain language
labeled input fields. No playground for RDF and XML here.
Ask the vendors why they don't provide that.
But don't forget to evaluate the economy of a new catalogers'
interface - and what it means to have different ones on sytems A, B and
C - in comparison with the universal interface everybody is used to
now. If you want to move away from plain tagged editing, it becomes
lots more difficult to create a standard. One reason is that interface
techniques keep evolving ...

Oh I forget: RDA's trouble with MARC was what led to this plan in the
first place. Well, that is not MARC's fault but the one of the
particular setup that was used for the test. It did not use
capabilities and provisions that are in fact there in MARC, like the
use of identifiers for authority headings, and record linking for
multi-part resources; the part-whole relationship wasn't considered
at all.
The test, in short, was a much too timid and superficial exercise
to base any overall judgement about "RDA in MARC" on. Or had the test,
to begin with, been designed so as to be able to then say, "See how
inadequate MARC is!"?

MARC does have its flaws, I'm really no fan of it as it is now, let
alone the curent practice, and I have written up and published a long
list of flaws. With some, I don't know why they haven't long since
been solved. They may, however, be cured without sacrificing the
economy of MARC, without dismissing the entire concept and logic
before something demonstrably more economical and logical has been
found and proven.

Briefly: We can set up our entire enterprise so that, internally, we
have the full benefit of an economical format that fits all our
numerous and highly diverse management purposes which are of no
interest to end-users. Externally, no one needs to be confronted
with our internal format, but there can be an increasing variety
of options to choose from, all derived from the same internal format.


(ISO2709, BTW, is *not* among the flaws and issues. It is a very
marginal issue of a purely internal nature and is in no way related
to MARC as a content standard. MARC can perfectly well work without
ISO, no one needs to bother with it except the few systems that are
still unable to ingest anything else, and they can use MarcEdit to
get what they want. Abandoning ISO in favor of the external format
MarcEdit uses, you get rid of the 9999 character field length limit as 
well.)

B.Eversberg.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager