I think the point I'm taking away here is a reminder that there are different boundaries for metadata management in different organizations (and that those boundaries actually extend into the metadata itself, as a matter of provenance and responsibility), all kinds of workflows for managing metadata, and therefore varying needs for varying techniques (including caching).

Personally, my hope is that we can satisfy many of those technical needs by relying on architecture that already exists and is well-proven (starting with the Web itself and Linked Data across it). I haven't heard anything in this discussion that would tell me otherwise, which makes me quite happy. Whether a given presentation at a given institution is generated entirely dynamically or entirely from local records, or in some middle wise (which seems much more likely to me) doesn't seem to me to be at stake, because that will always be a local question informed by local desires and resources.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Charles Pennell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tables of contents are as much core metadata as any of the "controlled vocabulary" data, since they provide so much free-text subject fodder for patron searches in our catalogs.  This explains why we often cache this data to enable search against it in spite of its non-presence in our physical record structure.  One might also argue that linked NAF (but not SAF, which only appears in its controlled state) data could be subsidiary, since these are primarily controlled vocabulary for personal, corporate or meeting names already on board in other parts of bibliographic description, such as in author or publisher statements and notes.  Useful for collocation yes, and perhaps for strictly "author" searches, but not required for presentation.  OCLC has certainly argued in the past that descriptive metadata is not necessarily "ours" and indeed linked data has the potential to make it possible to simply haul descriptive metadata out of WorldCat for display in our local catalog, if we haven't already given over to the utility for direct provision of our catalog (e.g., WCL).  This would solve the problem of maintaining serial records through their life cycle, assuming that CONSER and/or utility members are maintaining serial records in the utility better than we are within our local catalogs.  We need to widen our consideration of linked data to encompass descriptive metadata as well.
> 
> Charley Pennell
> Principal Cataloger
> NCSU Libraries
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 6/30/14, 8:13 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> There's another, more technical point here. It's one of the reasons it's not really feasible to maintain a "stateless catalog", at least not right now, if we want to fulfill the expectations of discovery held by most library users. We can effectively load book images at the last minute because we don't search them, and we don't integrate that data (the images) within a set of search results.
> For me, this would have been point #1. There's a big difference between pulling something in for display only vs. data that you intend to use for search or some other decision-making. I suspect that this could be the reasoning behind the "common abstraction layer" in BIBFRAME, although I don't believe I've seen it explained in that way. In fact, the motivation behind the CAL is still a bit of a mystery to me -- the documentation explains what it is, but not why. I'd very much like to hear the why from anyone who feels they understand it.
> 
> kc
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charley Pennell
> Principal Cataloger
> NCSU Libraries
> North Carolina State University