04.12.2012 19:54, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I believe that Gordon is suggesting something like the XC method in
> which the original data is kept so there is no loss as you reformat.
> However, I don't know if XC or Gordon's proposal will allow changes
> further up the chain to be returned losslessly to the original format.
> Will it be expected that records will be created or edited in BIBFRAME,
> and that the elements in those records will be 1-to-1 with elements in
Frankly, I'm baffled, esp. by the last sentence.
Were *that* the case, then why go to all the huge effort of creating a
whole new, not just format, but "framework to better accommodate future
needs"? Logically, a 1-to-1 solution would be no more than the devil in
disguise, it would in fact preclude any venturing into new territory
inaccessible now with MARC, if would not open up new passages for
data interchange with other communities not navigable now, out of
our tightly woven MARC environments.
Did BIBFRAME not come into being just because there was so much fuss
over the inadequacies of MARC, resulting in outcries like "MARC
must die", and statements even from on high like
"Recognizing that Z39.2/MARC are no longer fit for the purpose..."
Furthermore, wasn't RDA created for much the same reasons, and can it be
envisioned to use a 1-on-1 equivalent of MARC - card-centric and
intertwined with AACR2 as it is - as the carrier for an entirely new
data model that aspires to overcome AACR's ghastly shortcomings?
So, while a MARC -> BIBFRAME -> MARC roundtrip may be feasible and,
for a while, even necessary (it means old wine into new barrels and
back with no improvement on its quality), storing new wine in old
wineskins was long since felt as less than desirable.