Jeffrey Trimble wrote:
> What will be needed to get catalogers to "buy in" to the shift to a new
> structure, is an editor which the data can be created, manipulated and
> maintained without know how to use xml coding (or other "<coding>")
> A reminder that MARC was supposed to be "under the hood" and not for
> the end user-cataloger. No one developed the interface any further and
> it has become the "defacto" editor.
> This is where you will have major pushback from the Librarians that are in
> technical services more than anything else. Of course, our ILS vendors
> need to step up to the plate and show us some next-generation models
> for the creation/maintenance/manipulation with input from the users
> who create the data.
> I believe that this will be the *major* hurdle to overcome. Once I see an
> input screen that is as efficient and easy to use as the MARC record is,
> than I don't care how it lies underneath.
I was *totally* with you, up until the last sentence quoted above.
What we ABSOLUTELY need is *not* something "as efficient and easy to use as the MARC record is".
What we ABSOLUTELY need is something more efficient and easier to use than the MARC record is.
This is where the ILS vendors have failed us miserably over the decades. It is one of the key reasons that cataloging is as expensive as it is. And I sincerely hope that adoption of the new framework will include creation of input/editing tools that are *far easier* than using a MARC record.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!