Yes, and that's why it was done. But it did not allow any changes in the
content of library records, and therefore did not move us forward in any
way. A mere serialization of an out-of-date format is like nailing good
wood onto rotten - you don't gain much.
On 3/6/15 7:25 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> There is one big difference: the whole stack of XML technologies can
> now be used to access, manage, and transform the data.
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> EXACTLY. To act as if MARCXML is anything different from ISO 2709 MARC is
>> nonsense. MARCXML is a pure serialization of the 2709 format into XML. It
>> allows for no modification of content compared to the MARC record. MARCXML
>> is not allowed to vary from MARC, it must be totally backward compatible,
>> so it is essentially the same thing as MARC. Anyone using MARCXML as an
>> argument that we have "moved on" is very wrong.
>> On 3/6/15 6:13 AM, Bowers, Kate A. wrote:
>>> MARCXML might have been a step in the right direction if the scope of
>>> MARCXML was transformation of MARC rather than a verbatim "XML-izing" within
>>> the limitations of MARC.
>>> For example, MARCXML does nothing useful with fixed field data except to
>>> put it into a new bottle. It could have been made verbose and infinitely
>>> flexible, but that wasn't done.
>>> Kate Bowers
>>> Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
>>> Harvard University Archives
>>> Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
>>> voice: (617) 384-7787
>>> fax: (617) 495-8011
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Weinheimer
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 8:44 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Linked data
>>> Ross Singer wrote:
>>> Counterpoint: if libraries can do "anything they want" with their data and
>>> have had 40+ years to do so, why haven't they done anything new or
>>> interesting with it for the past 20?
>>> How, with my MARC records alone, do I let people know that they might be
>>> interested in "Clueless" if they're looking at "Sense and Sensibility"?
>>> do I find every Raymond Carver short story in the collection? The albums
>>> that Levon Helm contributed to? How can I find every introduction by Carl
>>> Sagan? What do we have that cites them?
>>> How, with my MARC records alone, can I definitively limit only to ebooks?
>>> What has been published in the West Midlands?
>>> You *could* make a 3-D day-glo print of a MARC record, I suppose - but
>>> seems like exactly the sort of tone deaf navel gazing that has rendered
>>> systems and interfaces more and more irrelevant to our users.
>>> Why haven't libraries done anything new or interesting with our data for
>>> the past 20 years? Is it because it has been *impossible* due to our
>>> formats, even though we now have XML? You ask an excellent and important
>>> question that I was hoping somebody would bring up. It deserves a
>>> separate discussion. But first I want to emphasize: I am not saying that
>>> we need to work with MARC records alone--never said that at all. What I
>>> am saying is that for the library community, that is, the people who
>>> already know and understand--and even control--MARC format, changing the
>>> format they already control to Bibframe will not give them any new
>>> capabilities over what they have been able to do with MARCXML.
>>> *Librarians* understand the MARC codes and that means they can work with
>>> MARCXML to fold in their records with what else exists on the Internet;
>>> they can do that now, and they've been able to do it for awhile.
>>> Changing to Bibframe/RDF will not change anything for librarians, but it
>>> will change matters for non-librarians who may want to use our data for
>>> their purposes. Nevertheless, a *lot* of work will remain to be done. It
>>> isn't like after we change to Bibframe, we can fly onto the deck of the
>>> aircraft carrier festooned with banners that proclaim "Mission
>>> Accomplished". It will only be the beginning of a vast amount of work
>>> and expense. It seems to me to make sense to talk about that now.
>>> So, if we can already do anything and haven't, the obvious question is:
>>> why will anything change with Bibframe/RDF? again, I stress: this
>>> concerns *the library community*. Non-librarians will have new options
>>> but there will not be any new capabilities for the library community.
>>> Perhaps Bibframe will be a catalyst for change among librarians,
>>> providing a needed kick-in-the-pants to get them to do something they
>>> haven't until now. OK, I'd go along with that. But let's be fair and say
>>> that it is just as possible that it won't. Going back to the reason why
>>> we haven't done anything interesting in the last 20 years: maybe it's
>>> money, maybe it's imagination, maybe it's proprietary catalogs, maybe
>>> it's power.... I don't know, but there may be a whole host of other
>>> Perhaps with Bibframe the non-librarian community will come riding to
>>> the rescue and they will figure out what to do. We can hope.
>>> I wrote that message on Autocat to combat the popular idea that the
>>> reason libraries haven't done anything new or interesting is because of
>>> the limitations of the format. That was true until MARCXML arrived and
>>> then it became possible to do all sorts of new things. MARCXML may be
>>> nasty and difficult to work with, but no matter: if somebody wants to,
>>> it *can* be worked with *within the library community*. And people have
>>> worked with it, such as we see in catalogs that utilize Lucene indexing
>>> (which is based on MARCXML) to create the facets we see in different
>>> library catalogs. (That is one thing that has been done in the last 20
>>> years, and it is due to XML)
>>> I gave the example of printing day-glo colors merely to emphasize that
>>> we can currently do anything we want right now, but of course, I was not
>>> suggesting we should waste our time on that. I want to try to open
>>> people's minds to what *can* be possible. *Anything* is a tremendous
>>> concept that is difficult to grasp. Once we accept and begin to
>>> comprehend the idea that "anything can be done" the question of what
>>> would be better, or worse, uses of our labor and resources becomes far
>>> more complex and takes on different subtleties. Those who believe that
>>> the problems we have faced are because of the *format* so therefore, the
>>> solution is to get a "better format" and things will then be solved,
>>> will be sadly disillusioned.
>>> Finally, in answer to some other posts, I repeat once again that I am
>>> FOR the library community's implementation of linked data but we need to
>>> do it with our eyes open. I'll copy that part of my original message:
>>> "I want again to emphasize that libraries should go into linked data,
>>> but when we do so, there will probably be more question marks than
>>> exclamation points. Just as when a couple is expecting a baby and they
>>> experience pregnancy: at least when I experienced it, I imagined that
>>> the birth of my son would be an end of the pregnancy. But suddenly, I
>>> had a crying baby on my hands! Linked data will be similar: it will be a
>>> beginning and not an end."
>>> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus
>>> http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
>>> https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters
>>> Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
>>> +30 days]
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net