 |
 |
I have a vision of a future in 5, more likely 10, years where I'll send my database out for <linked?> authority work and to automagically change descriptive elements from AACR2 to RDA. I think this kind of system will work better for popular, not research, public libraries. I think that because popular public libraries have greater turnover of material and are not preserving older material. Still, it won't be perfect, but part of what will drive such a decision is a better record display from having the consistent data. I can't see my ILS trying to reconcile 245 $h and 336, 337, 338 to give me the same icon for type of material, and I can't see BIBFRAME reconciling these different MARC data elements as well. But, first we get to see the ugly of my ILS trying to get its SQL for MARC to line up with its SQL for BIBFRAME. Good times! Douglas E. Williams Technical Services Manager Campbell County Public Library 901 E 6th St. Newport, KY 41071 Phone: 859-572-5035, ext. 26 Fax: 859-572-5037 Email: [log in to unmask] On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Yes, especially since the bulk of our content at first will be MARC, >> transformations from what was in MARC yesterday, today and tomorrow will be >> there. >> > > Technically, the end requirement is to provide a format that is a credible > replacement* for MARC(21) in an RDA context (appendix M of the RDA Test > report). However, modeling the semantics of the AACR2 would seem to be a > necessary endeavor along the way. > > The underlying (conceptual) model of the bibliographic universe ought to > be one that can be mapped to all major systems. The properties of these > mappings are somewhat complicated. To use a recent subject of discussion as > a simple example, if one starts with MARC-21 data that contains a non > standard textual string and a coded relator, the mapping into a semantic > model might not preserve the non-standard string. MARC-21 data using a > standard string might map to the same semantic representation. > Such mapping would not be invertible, since the non-standard string would > not have been preserved. > > [I have some concerns and suggestions about some of the work that has > been done and some work that has not been done under the BIBFRAME which I > will explore under separate cover.] > > Simon > > Simon >