LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


[email protected]


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  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: New MARC

From:

Laurence Creider <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 31 May 2013 08:42:27 -0600

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (164 lines)

I suspect that the skepticism on this issue is the result of the bitter 
experience that many (most) us have had with ILS vendors who never 
developed their ILS systems to take full advantage of even the limited 
capabilities of the MARC format.

As others have noticed, the segmentation of the library market has 
hindered many developments that would be useful to some but not all 
libraries.  Still, the refusal to do simple things such as index the 043 
field, let alone complicated tasks such as validation of a 100/240 
combination by an anthority record with a 100 and a subfield t, makes one 
dubious about the ability or willingness of the market to respond to 
anything but large-scale demand and the lowest common denominator.


--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

  On Fri, 31 May 2013, Shlomo Sanders wrote:

> Why do you say that?
> Because the issue is librarian acceptance or just disbelief that vendors
> develop what libraries want to buy?
> 
> If you want we can take this off-line.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 7:07, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>       I'll hold my reply until every librarian on the list has picked
>       themselves up off the floor from laughing. 
> -Ross. 
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>       I agree with Jeff. Your underestimating and not just
>       technology.
> If the target is agreed upon and libraries want to buy it,
> vendor will help ms,e it happen.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 1:08, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>       I guess my point is, I agree that this technically
>       possible. It just also seems highly improbable (at
>       scale, anyway). 
> -Ross. 
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Ross Singer wrote:
>       Well, ok, I'll set aside my questions of how
>       this data will get into Hadoop for now. A more
>       fundamental question is who is going to set
>       this up?  Vendors? The libraries?
> -Ross. 
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
>       I disagree. Knowing the name of
>       something, its type(s), and a few other
>       seemingly mundane clues can be enough to
>       identify a thing in a broader context.
>       RDF/Linked Data is not merely a variant
>       record format. Patterns exist in
>       information that extend well beyond
>       records, even if they are only
>       probabilistic. Don’t underestimate
>       Hadoop.
>
>        
>
>       Jeff
>
>        
>
>       From: Bibliographic Framework Transition
>       Initiative Forum
>       [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>       Behalf Of Ross Singer
>       Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
> 
>  
> 
> On May 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Karen Coyle
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>
>       This D2RQ thing is just a red
>       herring. Moving to linked data is
>       not just a matter of taking our
>       current data and outputting it in
>       a different serialization. In
>       fact, my fear is that we will do
>       just that if we develop BIBFRAME
>       as a "new version of MARC." Sure,
>       we can write programs to turn MARC
>       into triples -- but that won't get
>       us an active place in the linked
>       data cloud.
> 
>  
> 
> +1 - a graph full of literals isn't a
> tremendous improvement over, say, marcxml.
> 
>  
> 
> -Ross.
> 
>  
> 
>
>       kc
>
>       On 5/30/13 12:16 PM, Mitchell,
>       Michael wrote:
>
>                  I must have
>       missed that most libraries
>       don't store their data in
>       relational databases. I
>       thought most of the big ILS
>       did by now and they would
>       cover most libraries. That's
>       where MARC goes to rest in
>       our Sirsi-Dynix system after
>       being rendered apart. Oh
>       well.
>
>                  I still think a
>       lot of the discussion is
>       directed to discovery
>       relationships that are
>       pointed the wrong way. Out
>       from the library rather than
>       in.
>
>        
>
>       Thanks,
>
>        
>
>       Michael Mitchell
>
>       Technical Services Librarian
>
>       Brazosport College
> 
> 
>

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
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