 |
 |
There is one big difference: the whole stack of XML technologies can now be used to access, manage, and transform the data. On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > EXACTLY. To act as if MARCXML is anything different from ISO 2709 MARC is > nonsense. MARCXML is a pure serialization of the 2709 format into XML. It > allows for no modification of content compared to the MARC record. MARCXML > is not allowed to vary from MARC, it must be totally backward compatible, > so it is essentially the same thing as MARC. Anyone using MARCXML as an > argument that we have "moved on" is very wrong. > > kc > > > On 3/6/15 6:13 AM, Bowers, Kate A. wrote: >> >> MARCXML might have been a step in the right direction if the scope of >> MARCXML was transformation of MARC rather than a verbatim "XML-izing" within >> the limitations of MARC. >> >> For example, MARCXML does nothing useful with fixed field data except to >> put it into a new bottle. It could have been made verbose and infinitely >> flexible, but that wasn't done. >> >> Kate Bowers >> Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards >> Harvard University Archives >> Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA >> voice: (617) 384-7787 >> fax: (617) 495-8011 >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Weinheimer >> <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 8:44 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Linked data >> >> Ross Singer wrote: >> <snip> >> Counterpoint: if libraries can do "anything they want" with their data and >> have had 40+ years to do so, why haven't they done anything new or >> interesting with it for the past 20? >> >> How, with my MARC records alone, do I let people know that they might be >> interested in "Clueless" if they're looking at "Sense and Sensibility"? >> How >> do I find every Raymond Carver short story in the collection? The albums >> that Levon Helm contributed to? How can I find every introduction by Carl >> Sagan? What do we have that cites them? >> >> How, with my MARC records alone, can I definitively limit only to ebooks? >> What has been published in the West Midlands? >> >> You *could* make a 3-D day-glo print of a MARC record, I suppose - but >> that >> seems like exactly the sort of tone deaf navel gazing that has rendered >> our >> systems and interfaces more and more irrelevant to our users. >> </snip> >> >> Why haven't libraries done anything new or interesting with our data for >> the past 20 years? Is it because it has been *impossible* due to our >> formats, even though we now have XML? You ask an excellent and important >> question that I was hoping somebody would bring up. It deserves a >> separate discussion. But first I want to emphasize: I am not saying that >> we need to work with MARC records alone--never said that at all. What I >> am saying is that for the library community, that is, the people who >> already know and understand--and even control--MARC format, changing the >> format they already control to Bibframe will not give them any new >> capabilities over what they have been able to do with MARCXML. >> *Librarians* understand the MARC codes and that means they can work with >> MARCXML to fold in their records with what else exists on the Internet; >> they can do that now, and they've been able to do it for awhile. >> Changing to Bibframe/RDF will not change anything for librarians, but it >> will change matters for non-librarians who may want to use our data for >> their purposes. Nevertheless, a *lot* of work will remain to be done. It >> isn't like after we change to Bibframe, we can fly onto the deck of the >> aircraft carrier festooned with banners that proclaim "Mission >> Accomplished". It will only be the beginning of a vast amount of work >> and expense. It seems to me to make sense to talk about that now. >> >> So, if we can already do anything and haven't, the obvious question is: >> why will anything change with Bibframe/RDF? again, I stress: this >> concerns *the library community*. Non-librarians will have new options >> but there will not be any new capabilities for the library community. >> Perhaps Bibframe will be a catalyst for change among librarians, >> providing a needed kick-in-the-pants to get them to do something they >> haven't until now. OK, I'd go along with that. But let's be fair and say >> that it is just as possible that it won't. Going back to the reason why >> we haven't done anything interesting in the last 20 years: maybe it's >> money, maybe it's imagination, maybe it's proprietary catalogs, maybe >> it's power.... I don't know, but there may be a whole host of other >> reasons. >> >> Perhaps with Bibframe the non-librarian community will come riding to >> the rescue and they will figure out what to do. We can hope. >> >> I wrote that message on Autocat to combat the popular idea that the >> reason libraries haven't done anything new or interesting is because of >> the limitations of the format. That was true until MARCXML arrived and >> then it became possible to do all sorts of new things. MARCXML may be >> nasty and difficult to work with, but no matter: if somebody wants to, >> it *can* be worked with *within the library community*. And people have >> worked with it, such as we see in catalogs that utilize Lucene indexing >> (which is based on MARCXML) to create the facets we see in different >> library catalogs. (That is one thing that has been done in the last 20 >> years, and it is due to XML) >> >> I gave the example of printing day-glo colors merely to emphasize that >> we can currently do anything we want right now, but of course, I was not >> suggesting we should waste our time on that. I want to try to open >> people's minds to what *can* be possible. *Anything* is a tremendous >> concept that is difficult to grasp. Once we accept and begin to >> comprehend the idea that "anything can be done" the question of what >> would be better, or worse, uses of our labor and resources becomes far >> more complex and takes on different subtleties. Those who believe that >> the problems we have faced are because of the *format* so therefore, the >> solution is to get a "better format" and things will then be solved, >> will be sadly disillusioned. >> >> Finally, in answer to some other posts, I repeat once again that I am >> FOR the library community's implementation of linked data but we need to >> do it with our eyes open. I'll copy that part of my original message: >> "I want again to emphasize that libraries should go into linked data, >> but when we do so, there will probably be more question marks than >> exclamation points. Just as when a couple is expecting a baby and they >> experience pregnancy: at least when I experienced it, I imagined that >> the birth of my son would be an end of the pregnancy. But suddenly, I >> had a crying baby on my hands! Linked data will be similar: it will be a >> beginning and not an end." >> >> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus >> http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page >> https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules >> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters >> Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay >> +30 days] > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600