Print

Print


Robin,

I am happy to be corrected, but I would need to see some examples, in MARC,
that satisfy the scenarios I laid forth.

I deal with lots and lots of MARC data and none of it can answer those
kinds of questions, and, worse, a lot of it isn't even possible to link to
other data where I could answer those questions.

Remember, when we talk about MARC data, we can't just talk about what's
*possible* in MARC21, but what actually is in the records we have: since
each record is a discrete standalone document, if the data isn't there,
it's nearly impossible to improve upon that.

Or, basically, what Karen just said.

-Ross.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:04 PM Wendler, Robin King <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  My reaction was the same as Cecilia’s.  MARC can carry that information.
> There has been a vicious circle, though, because without systems building
> functionality to use the metadata, libraries have been unlikely to invest
> in creating it. It’s been increasingly difficult to justify this level of
> detail in cataloging to administrators. We can lay plenty of sins at MARC’s
> door, but not these particular ones.
>
>
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> Robin Wendler
>
> Library Technology Services
>
> Harvard University
>
> 90 Mt. Auburn St.
>
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> 617-495-3724
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Cecilia M. Preston
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:38 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Linked data
>
>
>
> Ross,
>
>
>
> My first reaction to many of these questions about what MARC has not or
> could not do, has been talk to your ILS vendor.  Much of the data embedded
> in a MARC record was never indexed by the ILS folks because ‘no one was
> interested in it’ or what was generally referred to in the ancient days of
> Z39.50 ATS (Author, Title, Subject) was all the patron/user/client is
> interested in.  When I asked the vendor for my local system at ALA why I
> could not get access to some information I knew was in a MARC record the
> answer was simply ‘we can index that if they want to $$$ for it’  Not
> something I think many institutions have the funding to do for me.
>
>
>
> -Cecilia
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Forwarded by permission of James Weinheimer:
>
>
>
>   There are some points to keep in mind when considering linked
>   data/semantic web. The new formats (schema.org, Bibframe) are *not*
>   there for libraries to be able to do new and wonderful things with their
>   own data. Why? Because libraries already understand and control all of
>   that data. Right now, so long as we have XML formats (and we have that
>   now with MARCXML) we can do *anything* we want with the data. MARCXML is
>   not perfect, but it is still XML and that means: librarians can search
>   that data however we want, manipulate it however we want, transform it
>   however we want, sort it however we want and display it however we want.
>   If we want to search by the fiction code in the fixed fields and sort by
>   number of pages or by 100/700$q we can. We can print out reams of entire
>   records, or any bits and pieces of them we could want, collate them in
>   any number of ways (or not), and print them out on 3D printers in
>   day-glow colors, display them with laser beams on the moon or work with
>   them in the virtual reality "wearable technology". We can do all of that
>   and more *right now* if we wanted. We've been able to do it for a long
>   time. We don't need schema.org or Bibframe to enhance our own
>   capabilities because we can do anything with our own data now.
>
>   So, who is schema.org and Bibframe for? Non-librarians, i.e. for people
>   who neither understand nor control our data. Libraries will allow others
>   to work with our data in ways that they can understand a bit more than
>   MARC. Non-librarians cannot be expected to understand 240$k or 700$q,
>   but with schema.org or Bibframe, it is supposed to be easier for
>   them--although it still won't be easy. Nevertheless, they will be able
>   to take our data and do with it as they will as they cannot do now with
>   our MARC/ISO2709 records.
>
>   With Bibframe and schema.org people will be able to merge it with other
>   parts of the linked data universe (oops! Not Freebase or dbpedia.
>   They'll have to go to Wikidata! Wonder how long that will last!) or with
>   all kinds of web APIs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_API) that
>   can create mashups. (I still think this video gives the best description
>   of a mashup: What is a mashup? - ZDNet
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcP2CZ8DS8>. Here too is a
>   list of some of the web apis
>   http://www.programmableweb.com/apis/directory) Web programmers can then
>   put these things together to create something absolutely new, e.g. bring
>   together library data with ebay so that people can see if something on
>   ebay is available in the library or vice versa. But remember that those
>   web programmers will also be able to manipulate our data as much as we
>   can, so the final product they create may look and work completely
>   differently than we would imagine, or that we would like. As a result,
>   libraries and catalogers will lose the control of their data that they
>   have always enjoyed. For better or worse, that is a necessary
>   consequence of sharing your data.
>
>   Then comes what are--I think--the two major questions of linked data for
>   libraries. First is: OK. We add the links, but what do we link *to*?
>   Will linking into id.loc.gov appeal to the public? I personally don't
>   think so since there is so little there, other than the traditional
>   syndetic structures found in our traditional catalogs (i.e. the UF, BT,
>   NT, RT for subjects, the earlier/later names of corporate bodies and
>   series, the other names of people). This is not what people think of
>   when they think of the advantages of linked data. While those things may
>   be nice for us, I don't know if that will be so appealing to the public.
>   If it is to become appealing to the public, somebody somewhere will have
>   to do a lot of work to make them appealing.
>
>   Concerning VIAF, it's nice to know the authorized forms in Hebrew,
>   French, Italian, and so on, but again, is that so appealing to the
>   *public*? It may be, but that remains to be proven.
>
>   Second, there is no guarantee at all that anyone will actually do
>   anything with our data. While I certainly hope so, there are no
>   guarantees that anybody will do anything with our data. It could just
>   sit and go unused.
>
>   It's interesting to note that the LC book
>   catalog in this format has been in the Internet Archive for awhile now
>   (https://archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net) but I haven't
>   heard that any developers have used it.
>
>   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
>   opencatalogingrules <http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/> Cataloging
> Matters
>   Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
>   +30 days]
>
>   --
>
> --
> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask] First Thus
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page
> https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> opencatalogingrules <http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/> Cataloging
> Matters
> Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts [delay
> +30 days]
>
>
>