Print

Print


Many people I respect have warned me not to engage, but I can’t let this go without a response… 


I don’t appreciate your patronizing read-no-further warning that equates "easily offended" (as if it’s a character flaw), “transexual phobic", and people who are neither easily offended nor transexual phobic (but who should be offended by your cheap/un-cited/incredibly-out-of-context use of a story). Your use of “or" and “please" don’t mask your attempt to excuse yourself from a critical response. 

A light-hearted attempt to use the car analogy to call for a more constructive conversation about BIBFRAME doesn’t give you license to equate your love for MARC to anyone’s gender identification or related anatomy… owning a car doesn’t either. You didn’t start the car analogy, but you certainly took it too far. Even with a proper citation and/or demonstrable understanding of the communities mentioned— it was, at best, a distraction from the process.

Re: your suicide tangent, I’m not even going to go into why you shouldn’t make light of this topic. Part of the reason BIBFRAME shares characteristics with a Jaguar that has trouble starting is because of people on this list committed to not having a constructive conversation. More progress on BIBFRAME could have happened in less time if there wasn’t so much fear mongering.

If you’re not here to have a constructive conversation, then why are you here? Why not contribute to the experiment (perhaps even help describe what concepts in MARC need to be preserved in support of critical use cases) and see what happens? If we find that linked data doesn’t reap any or all of the possible benefits (e.g. greater SEO, greater inferencing, production efficiencies, greater interactions with other cultural heritage/research/information communities, knowledge creation) than we can collect what we have learned and react. 

We do know one thing (despite your distractions). MARC meets only some of the library domains needs; MARC is not a low threshold carrier for others to consume/interpret/discover our data. It must be one of our goals/needs if we want our collections and services to be discoverable and ultimately remain relevant.

I’m going to stop here now and get back to what I can do to make BIBFRAME and libraries (in general) better.







On 4/3/15, 7:23 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>If you are easily offended, or are transexual phobic, please delete
>now.
>
>Rob said:
>
>>So ... please lets focus on constructive suggestions for how to improve the
>>current Model T version of the ontology we have now, towards that much
>>sleeker and better performing Ferrari :)
>
>Reminds me of the account (in "Atlantic" I think) of a convention of
>female to male transexuals.  The author likened those with enlarged
>cliterus to happy Volkswagon owners, and those with constructed penis
>to unhappy Jaguar owners.  I've been a happy Volkswagon owner.
>
>Remember the man from "Mad Men", who hung himself because he could not
>get his Jaguar to start, so he could gas himself?  We now have
>assisted suicide in Canada, if worse comes to worse.
>
>I did not start the car analogy!
>
>
>   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________