Print

Print


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