Print

Print


On 1/31/15 8:16 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> So, from my personal experience, I do not recommend to propose a 
> MARC-centered "serialization only" Bibframe dialect. It will not 
> improve Bibframe or ease the migration, it will just add a truncated 
> RDF without links, without URIs, with another migration path.

+1. The "semantics" of MARC fields are not well-organized. Had MARC been 
treated to something like a relational-database analysis some decades 
ago, we wouldn't have a situation where things like dates of publication 
can be found in 3 or 4 different places in the record
   008 date of publication
   046 special coded dates (because there wasn't room in the 008 for 
expansion)
   240 (sometimes) date of the expression
   260 display form of date of publication

Oftentimes it is the same date that appears in each of these places in 
the record.

Nor would we have multiple ways to indicate the source of the data in 
the field:
   indicator value (e.g. 0 = LCSH)
   indicator value 7 + code in subfield $2

(The indicators alone are a can of worms. See: 
http://futurelib.pbworks.com/w/page/44421482/indicators)

To my mind, the only way forward with our data is to deconstruct MARC 
into semantic units, and move forward with those semantics, separate 
from the MARC structure.

And in case you are not aware of this, at this very moment new additions 
to MARC are being discussed at the ALA midwinter meeting in Chicago. 
That boggles my mind.

kc

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