 |
 |
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] 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] 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] 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