 |
 |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I strongly disagree with the statement that someone who understands > MARCXML can do whatever they want with the data. I think I have a pretty > good grasp of MARC and I have spent countless frustrating hours trying to > get information out of MARC records (and not always succeeding). > Granted, I'm not a developer, but I've worked with people who are good > developers so I don't think that's the bottleneck. > I'll stick to LCSH and related topics in this note, since that is the area I have studied the most, and thus one about which I know the least * Sometimes the data isn't in the MARC XML record. For example: - LC subjects files do not record NT relationships. This information may be inferred. - Sub-divided headings do not necessarily carry BT relationships to the implied broader terms (which may not established). - Headings, Inverted is not related to Headings. * Sometimes extracting information from the data requires deep common-sense reasoning to extract relationships/patterns. e.g. - Headings are established as compound noun phrases. Ask a linguist about the semantics of English compound noun phrases... * Sometimes processing requires knowledge from the SCM *as it existed at the time a heading was created/applied I will ignore the problematic fact that the structure of LCSH has been seriously corrupted for getting on 30 years (since the conversion to BT/NT/RT). [I will also ignore the fact that as of 2011 there was no peer-reviewed literature that demonstrated that subdivided subject headings could be said to have meaning. Granted, at that time there had only ever been one study, and that with problematic methodology.] BibFrame solves all of this by +++ATH