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:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:56:30 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

On 3/31/15 10:21 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
> 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.
>

No, please read the documentation. MARCXML is a serialization of ISO 
2709 -- has nothing to do with content, and nothing to do with MARC21. 
Now, some other bibliographic XML format could be interesting, but 
please please please read the documentation and stop posting 
misinformation about MARCXML.

kc

> 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]

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

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