Print

Print


I suspect that the skepticism on this issue is the result of the bitter 
experience that many (most) us have had with ILS vendors who never 
developed their ILS systems to take full advantage of even the limited 
capabilities of the MARC format.

As others have noticed, the segmentation of the library market has 
hindered many developments that would be useful to some but not all 
libraries.  Still, the refusal to do simple things such as index the 043 
field, let alone complicated tasks such as validation of a 100/240 
combination by an anthority record with a 100 and a subfield t, makes one 
dubious about the ability or willingness of the market to respond to 
anything but large-scale demand and the lowest common denominator.


--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

  On Fri, 31 May 2013, Shlomo Sanders wrote:

> Why do you say that?
> Because the issue is librarian acceptance or just disbelief that vendors
> develop what libraries want to buy?
> 
> If you want we can take this off-line.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 7:07, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>       I'll hold my reply until every librarian on the†list has picked
>       themselves up off the floor from laughing.†
> -Ross.†
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>       I agree with Jeff. Your underestimating and not just
>       technology.
> If the target is agreed upon and libraries want to buy it,
> vendor will help ms,e it happen.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 31, 2013, at 1:08, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>       I guess my point is, I agree that this technically
>       possible. It just also seems highly improbable (at
>       scale, anyway).†
> -Ross.†
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Ross Singer wrote:
>       Well, ok, I'll set aside my questions of how
>       this data will get into Hadoop for now. A more
>       fundamental question is who is going to set
>       this up? †Vendors? The libraries?
> -Ross.†
> 
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
>       I disagree. Knowing the name of
>       something, its type(s), and a few other
>       seemingly mundane clues can be enough to
>       identify a thing in a broader context.
>       RDF/Linked Data is not merely a variant
>       record format. Patterns exist in
>       information that extend well beyond
>       records, even if they are only
>       probabilistic. Donít underestimate
>       Hadoop.
>
>       †
>
>       Jeff
>
>       †
>
>       From: Bibliographic Framework Transition
>       Initiative Forum
>       [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>       Behalf Of Ross Singer
>       Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:39 PM
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] New MARC
> 
> †
> 
> On May 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Karen Coyle
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>
>       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.
> 
> †
> 
> +1 - a graph full of literals isn't a
> tremendous improvement over, say, marcxml.
> 
> †
> 
> -Ross.
> 
> †
> 
>
>       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
> 
> 
>