Print

Print


My guess is that most ILS's (I haven't actually polled them but have 
worked with a few) use some form of relational DBMS. However, that 
doesn't mean that the data has been normalized "relationally" - in fact, 
in systems I worked on, we mainly stored "blobs" in the RDBMS, and for 
retrieval built sets of bit strings on top of the RDBMS indexes to make 
retrieval efficient enough. Most enterprise systems use RDBMS's because 
that's what's on the market, well-tested and supported. Some are now 
moving to "NOSQL" DBMS's that are not relational. These latter have been 
designed to handle things like XML documents, and data that isn't a 
regular as that required by RDBMS.

Relational databases are good when you have data that has lots of 
repetition, and where most of that repetition is one-to-many. Our data 
just isn't like that.

This D2RQ thing is just a red herring. Moving to linked data is not just 
a matter of taking our current data and outputting it in a different 
serialization. In fact, my fear is that we will do just that if we 
develop BIBFRAME as a "new version of MARC." Sure, we can write programs 
to turn MARC into triples -- but that won't get us an active place in 
the linked data cloud.

kc


On 5/30/13 12:16 PM, Mitchell, Michael wrote:
>
> I must have missed that most libraries don't store their data in 
> relational databases. I thought most of the big ILS did by now and 
> they would cover most libraries. That's where MARC goes to rest in our 
> Sirsi-Dynix system after being rendered apart. Oh well.
>
> I still think a lot of the discussion is directed to discovery 
> relationships that are pointed the wrong way. Out from the library 
> rather than in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Mitchell
>
> Technical Services Librarian
>
> Brazosport College
>
> Lake Jackson, TX
>
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Young,Jeff (OR)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:56 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
>
> The point came up earlier that most libraries don't store their data 
> in relational databases, so this particular tool won't help in those 
> cases. Somebody else argued that most relational database are 
> unmappable into anything useful, but I find that hard to believe.
>
> Jeff
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Mitchell, Michael
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:42 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
>
> Then why are we going through all these changes with RDA and Bibframe? 
> These changes have all been touted as a way to make our data 
> accessible to others on the Web. This is apparently what D2RQ does so 
> why don't we fine tune this and we are done? A goodly portion of what 
> I'm reading here sounds more like attempts to add sources of info 
> outside of our libraries (e.g. six different name authority sources) 
> rather than the original facilitation of others coming in to our 
> existing library data. We're supposed to be breaking down the silos, 
> not building new Googles. Seems D2RQ already breaks those silos.
>
> Michael Mitchell
>
> Technical Services Librarian
>
> Brazosport College
>
> Lake Jackson, TX
>
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Young,Jeff (OR)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:44 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
>
> If your data is a relational database, try D2RQ rather than writing code.
>
> http://d2rq.org/
>
> Jeff
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Doug Williams
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:15 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
>
> 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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[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
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet