The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?

Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record being
archaic.  The MARC
record actually represents a minor triumph of design.  It is
very compact,
migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head,
even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant in
ways that much of our
technology today is not.

I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along the
way.  But, the
fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one to
think that its
design has an advantage.

I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define
that (roughly and,
quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't define
technology as merely
electron-based novelty.  

What I try to do in both my personal and professional lives
is keep what is
good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is bad
behind & go right past
what is novel and bad.

I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around innovation
since we are often
quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely, there
are strong
disincentives for wanting to retain something old.)  And
then we go onward. 
Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way side. 
Why? Possibly
because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because it
just didn't serve a
need? Possibly because it is a design failure?  

I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I
always hope most of
us are better than just embracing the new without too much
question just
because it is new (broadly done in society). 

e roel

------ original message ------
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drewgmail.com>
to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us>Cc: web4libwebjunction.org
re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"

One problem with this type of statement: "My biggest
pet peeve with library
technology is MARC records - until the library world is
ready to move to a
non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much will
improve."

It implies that there is one world wide monolithic group or
organization known
as "the library world."  It is much more
complicated than that.

 
-- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:

I'm also very interested in finding out how the
"Ultimate Debate" went. I was
a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I tend to
have pretty strong
feelings about the technical side of library innovation. My
biggest pet peeve
with library technology is MARC records - until the library
world is ready to
move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that
much will improve. 
If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?

Jesse Ephraim

Youth Services Librarian
Southlake Public Library
1400 Main Street, Suite 130
Southlake, TX  76092
(817) 748-8248
jephraimci.southlake.tx.us




_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

I would think that one aspect of a well-designed (or,
triumphant)
technology would be its ability to evolve along with
emerging
technologies - many of which exist for reasons far more
substantial than
being simply "electron-based novelties".  

MARC does not evolve.  It is simply MARC - a good tool for a
few
decades, but one which has far outlived its usefulness. 
Even attempts
to move MARC forward - MARCXML, for example - expose the
fundamental
problems with MARC.  It is needlessly complex, it's
structure is
unintuitive, and it requires that systems adhere to its own
standards
rather than adhering to the standards of the broader world
of
information resources.  As for the question of whether
libraries
innovate, I think our undying commitment to MARC precludes
innovation in
many cases.  

--
Andrew Ashton
Systems Librarian
Scribner Library, Skidmore College
(518)580-5505

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf Of e roel
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:32 AM
To: web4libwebjunction.org
Cc: web4libwebjunction.org
Subject: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?

Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record being
archaic.
The MARC record actually represents a minor triumph of
design.  It is
very compact, migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head, even at its most granular
point. It is
simply elegant in ways that much of our technology today is
not.

I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along the
way.  But,
the fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one
to think
that its design has an advantage.

I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define
that (roughly
and, quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define
technology as merely electron-based novelty.  

What I try to do in both my personal and professional lives
is keep what
is good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go
right past what is novel and bad.

I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around innovation
since we are
often quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are
strong disincentives for wanting to retain something old.) 
And then we
go onward. 
Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way side. 
Why?
Possibly because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly
because it just
didn't serve a need? Possibly because it is a design
failure?  

I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I
always hope
most of us are better than just embracing the new without
too much
question just because it is new (broadly done in society). 

e roel



_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

I would think that one aspect of a well-designed (or,
triumphant)
technology would be its ability to evolve along with
emerging
technologies - many of which exist for reasons far more
substantial than
being simply "electron-based novelties".  

MARC does not evolve.  It is simply MARC - a good tool for a
few
decades, but one which has far outlived its usefulness. 
Even attempts
to move MARC forward - MARCXML, for example - expose the
fundamental
problems with MARC.  It is needlessly complex, it's
structure is
unintuitive, and it requires that systems adhere to its own
standards
rather than adhering to the standards of the broader world
of
information resources.  As for the question of whether
libraries
innovate, I think our undying commitment to MARC precludes
innovation in
many cases.  

--
Andrew Ashton
Systems Librarian
Scribner Library, Skidmore College
(518)580-5505

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounceswebjunction.org] On Behalf Of e roel
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:32 AM
To: web4libwebjunction.org
Cc: web4libwebjunction.org
Subject: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?

Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record being
archaic.
The MARC record actually represents a minor triumph of
design.  It is
very compact, migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head, even at its most granular
point. It is
simply elegant in ways that much of our technology today is
not.

I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along the
way.  But,
the fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one
to think
that its design has an advantage.

I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define
that (roughly
and, quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define
technology as merely electron-based novelty.  

What I try to do in both my personal and professional lives
is keep what
is good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go
right past what is novel and bad.

I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around innovation
since we are
often quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are
strong disincentives for wanting to retain something old.) 
And then we
go onward. 
Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way side. 
Why?
Possibly because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly
because it just
didn't serve a need? Possibly because it is a design
failure?  

I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I
always hope
most of us are better than just embracing the new without
too much
question just because it is new (broadly done in society). 

e roel



_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

On 6/27/07, e roel <e.roelusa.net> wrote:
> Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being archaic.  The MARC
> record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very compact,
> migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head,
> even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant
in ways that much of our
> technology today is not.

Honestly, this says to me you've never worked directly with
the MARC
record or tried to integrate it with anything else.

There is no doubt that the MARC format was a marvel 40 years
ago.
Blindly clinging it to it today makes no sense.  It is an
interconnected world now and MARC doesn't interconnect very
well.

Also, the logic is very flawed in saying "if it's hung
around this
long, it must be doing something right!".  Our systems
are built
around the preservation and transport of the MARC record;
this doesn't
mean that the format is superior, it only means that the
infrastructure in place supports it and nothing else.  The
fact that
libraries handed over stewardship of the infrastructure to
the vendors
has ensured that the status quo will remain.  It's not in
the
financial best interest of the vendors to change and it's
not feasible
for the libraries to take on an endeavor that would be
incompatible
with all of the services and systems they use daily.

-Ross.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

On 6/27/07, e roel <e.roelusa.net> wrote:
> Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being archaic.  The MARC
> record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very compact,
> migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head,
> even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant
in ways that much of our
> technology today is not.

Honestly, this says to me you've never worked directly with
the MARC
record or tried to integrate it with anything else.

There is no doubt that the MARC format was a marvel 40 years
ago.
Blindly clinging it to it today makes no sense.  It is an
interconnected world now and MARC doesn't interconnect very
well.

Also, the logic is very flawed in saying "if it's hung
around this
long, it must be doing something right!".  Our systems
are built
around the preservation and transport of the MARC record;
this doesn't
mean that the format is superior, it only means that the
infrastructure in place supports it and nothing else.  The
fact that
libraries handed over stewardship of the infrastructure to
the vendors
has ensured that the status quo will remain.  It's not in
the
financial best interest of the vendors to change and it's
not feasible
for the libraries to take on an endeavor that would be
incompatible
with all of the services and systems they use daily.

-Ross.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

MARC certainly is a well-designed product for what it needed
to do  
when it was invented, namely provide an electronic surrogate
of a  
physical item, similar to how a catalogue card provides a
paper  
surrogate to a book.  However, the world has changed since
then.

Where MARC can't compete is when the data becomes the
record.  When  
we want to do full-text searching of a book, or even browse
a  
hierarchy within an item.  MARC cannot do this, and it would
be  
shortsighted to think that our tools will not need to
provide this in  
the future.  We're seeing this problem with electronic
journals now,  
but it is very quickly moving to electronic books.

I don't think the fact that MARC has survived this long
simply  
because it's well designed.  It's lasted this long because
it took a  
very long time to get everything into an electronic format. 
Millions  
(Billions?) of MARC records have been created in the last 40
years,  
(one of the most focused and concerted large-scale projects
in human  
history, I'm sure!) and that has a huge amount of momentum. 
We are  
just now at the tail end of this conversion process.  To say
it's  
lasted this long because of a design superiority is ignoring
this  
momentum.  (Similar to "Windows is the dominant
computer system  
because it's technically superior" when a better
interpretation is  
that it WAS technically superior, but is now riding on
historical  
momentum)

Sooner or later we'll have to realize that there won't be
another  
MARC.  Its widespread use can be attributed to it being the
only game  
in town when it was adopted.  Now, however, every person and
their  
dog is publishing an XML schema for this or that. Where I'd
like to  
see a lot of library research and development happen is in
getting  
these diverse metadata to talk to each other.  Like Bill's
statement  
before about there being a 'monolithic library world,' I
think it's  
even more naive to think that there's a one-size-fits-all
'monolithic  
metadata world' out there.

Andrew

On 27-Jun-07, at 9:31 AM, e roel wrote:

> Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being  
> archaic.  The MARC
> record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very  
> compact,
> migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization  
> at its head,
> even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant
in ways that  
> much of our
> technology today is not.
>
> I am open to alternatives, as there have been many
along the way.   
> But, the
> fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend
one to think  
> that its
> design has an advantage.
>
> I am someone who really loves good technology.  I
define that  
> (roughly and,
> quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define  
> technology as merely
> electron-based novelty.
>
> What I try to do in both my personal and professional
lives is keep  
> what is
> good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go  
> right past
> what is novel and bad.
>
> I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around
innovation since we  
> are often
> quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are strong
> disincentives for wanting to retain something old.) 
And then we go  
> onward.
> Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way
side.  Why?  
> Possibly
> because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because
it just  
> didn't serve a
> need? Possibly because it is a design failure?
>
> I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas.
I always  
> hope most of
> us are better than just embracing the new without too
much question  
> just
> because it is new (broadly done in society).
>
> e roel
>
> ------ original message ------
> date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
> from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drewgmail.com>
> to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us>Cc:  
> web4libwebjunction.org
> re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"
>
> One problem with this type of statement: "My
biggest pet peeve with  
> library
> technology is MARC records - until the library world is
ready to  
> move to a
> non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much
will improve."
>
> It implies that there is one world wide monolithic
group or  
> organization known
> as "the library world."  It is much more
complicated than that.
>
>
> -- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:
>
> I'm also very interested in finding out how the
"Ultimate Debate"  
> went. I was
> a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I
tend to have  
> pretty strong
> feelings about the technical side of library
innovation. My biggest  
> pet peeve
> with library technology is MARC records - until the
library world  
> is ready to
> move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt
that much will  
> improve.
> If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?
>
> Jesse Ephraim
>
> Youth Services Librarian
> Southlake Public Library
> 1400 Main Street, Suite 130
> Southlake, TX  76092
> (817) 748-8248
> jephraimci.southlake.tx.us
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

The MARC record represents a triumph in design for the
1960s, when 
bandwidth was exceptionally limited.  If you look at the
MARC 21 
communications format you can instantly see that it's from
an era 
when computer science still hadn't advanced from seeing 
data-transmission as anything other than advanced
telegraphing.   The 
format is very limited but is brilliant in that it is
optimized for a 
very specific constraint. However that constraint no longer
exists 
and it is counter to innovation to stay with a format simply
because 
it is what we've always done.

A better option would be an extensible and flexible format
(XML or 
something similar).  Conversion from a restrictive meta-data
standard 
to a more flexible one is trivial so the argument against
conversion 
due to limited resources is not really valid.  Additionally
our 
contemporary constraint/challenge is that our data is
rapidly 
changing.  If you were to look at our situation today for
what it is, 
extensibility and flexibility would definitely take priority
of 
keeping the size of the data file at an absolute minimum.

I don't think there are any strong arguments for the MARC
format 
other than "we've always done it that way".  MARC
was brilliant, but 
it no longer optimized for our environment, and that's what
makes it archaic.

--Will



At 09:31 AM 6/27/2007, e roel wrote:
>Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being archaic.  The MARC
>record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very compact,
>migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head,
>even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant in
ways that much of our
>technology today is not.
>
>I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along
the way.  But, the
>fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one
to think that its
>design has an advantage.
>
>I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define
that (roughly and,
>quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define technology as merely
>electron-based novelty.
>
>What I try to do in both my personal and professional
lives is keep what is
>good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go right past
>what is novel and bad.
>
>I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around
innovation since we are often
>quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are strong
>disincentives for wanting to retain something old.)  And
then we go onward.
>Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way
side.  Why? Possibly
>because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because
it just didn't serve a
>need? Possibly because it is a design failure?
>
>I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I
always hope most of
>us are better than just embracing the new without too
much question just
>because it is new (broadly done in society).
>
>e roel
>
>------ original message ------
>date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
>from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drewgmail.com>
>to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us>Cc: web4libwebjunction.org
>re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"
>
>One problem with this type of statement: "My
biggest pet peeve with library
>technology is MARC records - until the library world is
ready to move to a
>non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much will
improve."
>
>It implies that there is one world wide monolithic group
or organization known
>as "the library world."  It is much more
complicated than that.
>
>
>-- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:
>
>I'm also very interested in finding out how the
"Ultimate Debate" went. I was
>a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I tend
to have pretty strong
>feelings about the technical side of library innovation.
My biggest pet peeve
>with library technology is MARC records - until the
library world is ready to
>move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that
much will improve.
>If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?
>
>Jesse Ephraim
>
>Youth Services Librarian
>Southlake Public Library
>1400 Main Street, Suite 130
>Southlake, TX  76092
>(817) 748-8248
>jephraimci.southlake.tx.us
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

MARC certainly is a well-designed product for what it needed
to do  
when it was invented, namely provide an electronic surrogate
of a  
physical item, similar to how a catalogue card provides a
paper  
surrogate to a book.  However, the world has changed since
then.

Where MARC can't compete is when the data becomes the
record.  When  
we want to do full-text searching of a book, or even browse
a  
hierarchy within an item.  MARC cannot do this, and it would
be  
shortsighted to think that our tools will not need to
provide this in  
the future.  We're seeing this problem with electronic
journals now,  
but it is very quickly moving to electronic books.

I don't think the fact that MARC has survived this long
simply  
because it's well designed.  It's lasted this long because
it took a  
very long time to get everything into an electronic format. 
Millions  
(Billions?) of MARC records have been created in the last 40
years,  
(one of the most focused and concerted large-scale projects
in human  
history, I'm sure!) and that has a huge amount of momentum. 
We are  
just now at the tail end of this conversion process.  To say
it's  
lasted this long because of a design superiority is ignoring
this  
momentum.  (Similar to "Windows is the dominant
computer system  
because it's technically superior" when a better
interpretation is  
that it WAS technically superior, but is now riding on
historical  
momentum)

Sooner or later we'll have to realize that there won't be
another  
MARC.  Its widespread use can be attributed to it being the
only game  
in town when it was adopted.  Now, however, every person and
their  
dog is publishing an XML schema for this or that. Where I'd
like to  
see a lot of library research and development happen is in
getting  
these diverse metadata to talk to each other.  Like Bill's
statement  
before about there being a 'monolithic library world,' I
think it's  
even more naive to think that there's a one-size-fits-all
'monolithic  
metadata world' out there.

Andrew

On 27-Jun-07, at 9:31 AM, e roel wrote:

> Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being  
> archaic.  The MARC
> record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very  
> compact,
> migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization  
> at its head,
> even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant
in ways that  
> much of our
> technology today is not.
>
> I am open to alternatives, as there have been many
along the way.   
> But, the
> fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend
one to think  
> that its
> design has an advantage.
>
> I am someone who really loves good technology.  I
define that  
> (roughly and,
> quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define  
> technology as merely
> electron-based novelty.
>
> What I try to do in both my personal and professional
lives is keep  
> what is
> good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go  
> right past
> what is novel and bad.
>
> I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around
innovation since we  
> are often
> quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are strong
> disincentives for wanting to retain something old.) 
And then we go  
> onward.
> Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way
side.  Why?  
> Possibly
> because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because
it just  
> didn't serve a
> need? Possibly because it is a design failure?
>
> I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas.
I always  
> hope most of
> us are better than just embracing the new without too
much question  
> just
> because it is new (broadly done in society).
>
> e roel
>
> ------ original message ------
> date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
> from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drewgmail.com>
> to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us>Cc:  
> web4libwebjunction.org
> re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"
>
> One problem with this type of statement: "My
biggest pet peeve with  
> library
> technology is MARC records - until the library world is
ready to  
> move to a
> non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much
will improve."
>
> It implies that there is one world wide monolithic
group or  
> organization known
> as "the library world."  It is much more
complicated than that.
>
>
> -- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:
>
> I'm also very interested in finding out how the
"Ultimate Debate"  
> went. I was
> a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I
tend to have  
> pretty strong
> feelings about the technical side of library
innovation. My biggest  
> pet peeve
> with library technology is MARC records - until the
library world  
> is ready to
> move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt
that much will  
> improve.
> If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?
>
> Jesse Ephraim
>
> Youth Services Librarian
> Southlake Public Library
> 1400 Main Street, Suite 130
> Southlake, TX  76092
> (817) 748-8248
> jephraimci.southlake.tx.us
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4libwebjunction.org
> http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

The MARC record represents a triumph in design for the
1960s, when 
bandwidth was exceptionally limited.  If you look at the
MARC 21 
communications format you can instantly see that it's from
an era 
when computer science still hadn't advanced from seeing 
data-transmission as anything other than advanced
telegraphing.   The 
format is very limited but is brilliant in that it is
optimized for a 
very specific constraint. However that constraint no longer
exists 
and it is counter to innovation to stay with a format simply
because 
it is what we've always done.

A better option would be an extensible and flexible format
(XML or 
something similar).  Conversion from a restrictive meta-data
standard 
to a more flexible one is trivial so the argument against
conversion 
due to limited resources is not really valid.  Additionally
our 
contemporary constraint/challenge is that our data is
rapidly 
changing.  If you were to look at our situation today for
what it is, 
extensibility and flexibility would definitely take priority
of 
keeping the size of the data file at an absolute minimum.

I don't think there are any strong arguments for the MARC
format 
other than "we've always done it that way".  MARC
was brilliant, but 
it no longer optimized for our environment, and that's what
makes it archaic.

--Will



At 09:31 AM 6/27/2007, e roel wrote:
>Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record
being archaic.  The MARC
>record actually represents a minor triumph of design. 
It is very compact,
>migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head,
>even at its most granular point. It is simply elegant in
ways that much of our
>technology today is not.
>
>I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along
the way.  But, the
>fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one
to think that its
>design has an advantage.
>
>I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define
that (roughly and,
>quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't
define technology as merely
>electron-based novelty.
>
>What I try to do in both my personal and professional
lives is keep what is
>good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is
bad behind & go right past
>what is novel and bad.
>
>I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around
innovation since we are often
>quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely,
there are strong
>disincentives for wanting to retain something old.)  And
then we go onward.
>Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way
side.  Why? Possibly
>because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because
it just didn't serve a
>need? Possibly because it is a design failure?
>
>I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I
always hope most of
>us are better than just embracing the new without too
much question just
>because it is new (broadly done in society).
>
>e roel
>
>------ original message ------
>date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
>from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drewgmail.com>
>to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us>Cc: web4libwebjunction.org
>re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"
>
>One problem with this type of statement: "My
biggest pet peeve with library
>technology is MARC records - until the library world is
ready to move to a
>non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much will
improve."
>
>It implies that there is one world wide monolithic group
or organization known
>as "the library world."  It is much more
complicated than that.
>
>
>-- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraimci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:
>
>I'm also very interested in finding out how the
"Ultimate Debate" went. I was
>a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I tend
to have pretty strong
>feelings about the technical side of library innovation.
My biggest pet peeve
>with library technology is MARC records - until the
library world is ready to
>move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that
much will improve.
>If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?
>
>Jesse Ephraim
>
>Youth Services Librarian
>Southlake Public Library
>1400 Main Street, Suite 130
>Southlake, TX  76092
>(817) 748-8248
>jephraimci.southlake.tx.us
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Andrew Hankinson writes:
 > [...] (Similar to "Windows is the dominant
computer system because
 > it's technically superior" when a better
interpretation is that it
 > WAS technically superior, but is now riding on
historical momentum)

Uh-oh.

*ducks for cover*

 _/|_	
____________________________________________________________
_______
/o ) /  Mike Taylor    <mikeindexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.or
g.uk
)_v__/  "Klingon function calls do not have
'parameters' - they have
	 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM." -- Klingon
Programming
	 Mantra

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/