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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: New MARC

From:

"Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 31 May 2013 12:58:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (162 lines)

Time is already telling:

http://bit.ly/lO754b

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shlomo Sanders
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 2:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
>
> 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]
> OM>>
> > Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 5/30/13 * 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. 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

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager