Print

Print


Michael, thanks for writing that. It's not a rant. Labeling it a rant
carries a built-in apology for what you wrote and no apology is needed. I
don't think anyone in the cataloging profession can find the information
locked inside without some knowledge of MARC. If we are going to have to
transfer data from one schema and/or framework to another, we will have to
know the older language before translating it into the new. I thought
mapping of some kind would be necessary. New systems will not be able to
spring from the head of Zeus fully formed- they will need to borrow data
from the older structures. Some of that data is not necessary for display,
but it is used internally by catalogers and others for reporting purposes.
In addition to the library patron, the librarian also needs to utilize
information in the catalog to support daily operations and special projects.

"Why do the 'powers that be' think that we even want our local catalogs to
be semantically connected to the web or have all of our data linked?" is a
good question. We've been shamed into thinking that we need to look like any
other retail delivery mechanism because it's what our "customers" expect.
It's the research endeavor being shoe-horned into a business model, which
favors the cheap, the easy, the popular. That's not how research discovery
works. If we are linking to places that could go out of business and
disappear, we are not being responsible to the research community. If we are
linking to places that withhold data to limit access to content they don't
like or agree with, we are doing a disservice to our research community. If
we are caught in the middle of a fight between 2 commercial giants and our
researchers are denied access while they wrestle it out, research suffers.
We are putting our trust in linking data maintained by businesses that could
fold at any time for any reason or for no good reason. They don't have a
responsibility or interest to maintain access for the sake of access- we do.
We need a reliable back-up. 

Cindy Wolff


-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeff Young
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] 2-tier BIBFRAME

Michael,

The reason is so that people who have never seen a MARC record never need
to. They just want the information that is locked up deep inside.

Jeff



> On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Michael Ayres <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> 
> Martynas wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I haven't seen any actual MARC data, but if someone has a simple
example, we could work on that.
>>> 
>>> Martynas
> 
> Warning--RANT ahead:
> OK--You've got be kidding!!  Why is someone who has never seen any actual
MARC data trying to mess with restructuring the framework of our library
catalogs?!?
> This is preposterous!  As someone who has spent years cataloging (in both
academic and public institutions) as well as managing local systems and
library catalog data--I, for one, find this whole 'BIBFRAME' project
laughable.  Why do the 'powers that be' think that we even want our local
catalogs to be semantically connected to the web or have all of our data
linked?!  But go ahead and just keep on theorizing, while those of us in the
trenches keep serving our local customers' needs so very well with MARC (and
AACR2).
> [rant over--no need to respond to this]
> 
>