 |
 |
Yes, and that's why it was done. But it did not allow any changes in the content of library records, and therefore did not move us forward in any way. A mere serialization of an out-of-date format is like nailing good wood onto rotten - you don't gain much. kc On 3/6/15 7:25 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > 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 -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600