On 1/31/15 8:16 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> So, from my personal experience, I do not recommend to propose a
> MARC-centered "serialization only" Bibframe dialect. It will not
> improve Bibframe or ease the migration, it will just add a truncated
> RDF without links, without URIs, with another migration path.
+1. The "semantics" of MARC fields are not well-organized. Had MARC been
treated to something like a relational-database analysis some decades
ago, we wouldn't have a situation where things like dates of publication
can be found in 3 or 4 different places in the record
008 date of publication
046 special coded dates (because there wasn't room in the 008 for
240 (sometimes) date of the expression
260 display form of date of publication
Oftentimes it is the same date that appears in each of these places in
Nor would we have multiple ways to indicate the source of the data in
indicator value (e.g. 0 = LCSH)
indicator value 7 + code in subfield $2
(The indicators alone are a can of worms. See:
To my mind, the only way forward with our data is to deconstruct MARC
into semantic units, and move forward with those semantics, separate
from the MARC structure.
And in case you are not aware of this, at this very moment new additions
to MARC are being discussed at the ALA midwinter meeting in Chicago.
That boggles my mind.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net