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  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: New MARC

From:

Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 31 May 2013 06:04:01 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

Agreed.
If LOD takes off, then, personally, I believe it will have wide applicability and thus be supported by the various products.

Time will tell.

Thanks,
Shlomo

Sent from my iPad

On May 31, 2013, at 7:57, "Tennant,Roy" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I think we need to agree that "what libraries want to buy" is not a single thing. What a research library may wish to spend money on is not what a small public library can necessarily afford. So the question is much more nuanced than what has previously been stated. This then leads to the inevitable question of what the entire potential market for a given service might be, which changes the question substantially. If your potential market is a dozen large libraries any vendor would be justified to go elsewhere. However, if the potential market is much larger, then perhaps it would make sense to develop a product. Between those two points is a very large grey area. At the end of the day it isn't entirely clear what services a library can expect a vendor to supply, and therein lies the rub.
> Roy
> 
> From: Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 5/30/13 ē 9:42 PM
> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
> 
> 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]<mailto:[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. Donít 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

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