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  March 2015

BIBFRAME March 2015

Subject:

Re: Linked data

From:

James Weinheimer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:21:23 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

On 3/30/2015 9:46 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> (Note to JimW: Before you come back with some argument using MARCXML,
> please check the MARCXML documentation. MARCXML has NO flexibility
> compared to ISO 2709, and that is by design.)

I also find Ron's analogy interesting, and I am still considering it. 
But concerning the convention that MARCXML has NO flexibility vis-a-vis 
ISO2709, that is really not much of an argument. I assume this means the 
idea of "roundtrippability" of MARCXML, i.e. that MARCXML must be able 
to create normal MARC21/ISO2709 records.

Anybody can avoid that with a wave of the hand. There is no immutable 
"law of roundtrippability"--to my knowledge, there are no "MARC Storm 
Troopers" who will break down your door in the middle of the night to 
drag you off to their lair if you have the effontery to actually break 
that "law". Nobody has to sign a contract that says you will be sued if 
you don't follow "roundtrippability".

Roundtrippability is no more than a convention. Developers are always 
pushing the limits of such conventions. I'm glad they do. If they always 
just followed what they were "supposed to do" and be "correct", we would 
probably not have moved beyond the Gopher network.

But what are the consequences of breaking roundtrippability? The 
consequence is that anything created that is not roundtrippabile (an 
awful word by the way!) cannot be input into our conventional ILS that 
ingests only ISO2709 records. Although that happens every day in the web 
world, for libraries it would be a tremendous step into the unknown. 
Still, everybody knows this must happen inevitably sooner or later and I 
am sure that many developers would only reply that it would be much 
better sooner rather than later.

If somebody wants to convert MARCXML in whatever ways they want, nothing 
will happen to them. They'll be fine. They won't be kicked out of the 
library profession. They won't be punished in any way. In fact, if 
someone would make something good from MARCXML, they would--and 
should--be applauded. This has been the case for a long, long time. 
True, MARCXML can be difficult to work with, but it still *can* be 
worked with if people know the schema (library developers). There has 
been more than enough time to do so. But, many (catalogers especially) 
have been convinced that we are stuck where we are because everything 
must change first: formats, rules, and so on if libraries are to create 
anything that is really new. And therefore, everyone is supposed to wait 
how many *more* years before anything really innovative can be done? 
This in spite of what each of us can see with our own eyes: there are 
many bibliographic-type projects out there now--right now--that really 
are doing new things. And they are doing it with much worse formats and 
information than we have.

Once again, I emphasize that am not trying to place blame or anything of 
the sort. I repeat that I am *for* the RDF/Bibframe project. My initial 
post was simply to alert catalogers (primarily) not to expect anything 
anytime soon. And just a bit of the why.

James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

[delay +30 days]

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

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