Print

Print


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 A mere serialization of an out-of-date format is like nailing good 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