Hello Bernhard, Karen, List,
As a complete newcomer to RDA discussions, I'd like to ask: has anyone looked at ONIX representations of RDA?
Disclaimer: I work for EDItEUR (www.editeur.org). I'm not mailing to claim that ONIX is the answer to every problem, but I wonder if it has been looked in as part of this process?
I've recently done some work on "MARC-ONIX relations", shall we say, and the linked data representation of both of these, so the question is foremost in my mind: how can these standards communities work together for more interoperability?
I'd also be interested, in the context of the FRBR model mentioned here - have you looked at FRBRoo and Indecs as examples of event-based data modelling for books?
Project Lead, Linked Heritage (www.linkedheritage.org)
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: 14 May 2012 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF
13.05.2012 19:49, Karen Coyle:
> After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the
> difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the
> context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains some
> of my thinking on the topic:
> The short summary is that RDA is not really suitable for storage and
> use in a relational database system, and therefore is even further
> from being suitable for RDF. I use headings ("access points" in RDA, I
> believe) as my example, but there are numerous other aspects of RDA
> that belie its intention to support "scenario one."
You've done a very concise and elucidating description of the calamity, and there certainly needs to be discussion about it.
It raises two questions, although you may not be in a position to answer the second:
1. Would you advocate a restructuring of RDA to the effect that it
conforms with the relational model, or seamlessly lend itself to
implementations under that concept? Or i.o.w., that RDA come with
a relational table database design ready for implementation? (For
otherwise, as practice has shown, different and incompatible designs
2. Is there "credible progress" by now in the efforts to create a
successor to MARC? (After all, LC had made that e condition for
implementation, and they did meanwhile decide for it to take
place in 2013. Or are they taking the good intention for the deed?)
And if yes, what kind of approach will it be? Relational tables?
If your answer to question 1 is YES, wouldn't that amount to favoring the relational technology over others, potentially or probably more suitable ones? For there's that NoSQL movement gaining momentum right now. But even disregarding that, AACR was, I think, always taking pains to avoid getting involved with the fads and fashions of data structures, even MARC itself was never mentioned. Now, RDA test data have been published in nothing but MARC, only marginally embellished, thereby foregoing the opportunity to unfold much of its potential.
Sticking as it does to a low-level scenario 3.