The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?

It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and
take from something
the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest
thing to attack,
certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in the
least reductive
way may get us further.

I don't disagree with criticism of MARC.  And I have worked
with MARC
(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also didn't
say that because it
is still around, it must be good. I said that its longevity
may lend some
credibility to its design. It can be said that it is still
around, as Ross
did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We must
either build our
own changes or create some market force to change the
vendors library use. 
Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being
"good" (ie, it is very
expensive to go to something else and being less expensive
than going to
something else can be a "good attribute".) 

I am also not advocating just staying with it. My concerns
are about just
dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in
choreography of technology
design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave behind
the lesser
elements of MARC. 

I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has some
prescriptive powers
(for good _and_ bad).  But this is true with technologies
even using open
standards, source code... there are some very prescriptive
elements to
whatever technologies are chosen.  

------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinsongmail.com>
To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?

> 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/
> 



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

In my view, the longevity and widespread adoption of MARC
cataloging has 
as much to do with the accompanying manual for data entry --
AACR# -- as 
it does for the standard itself.  AACR# reflects a broadly-
and 
thoughtfully-derived community consensus on the business
rules and best 
practices for writing bibliographic metadata.  Few
communities outside 
of the 'library world' have made an  investment in something
similar (in 
fact, some have looked to AACR#).  So I guess my vote for
innovation 
would go to AACR#, not to MARC.

Gail Clement
Head, Digital Collections Center
Florida International University Libraries
http://digitalcoll
ections.fiu.edu/

e roel wrote:

>It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and
take from something
>the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest
thing to attack,
>certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in
the least reductive
>way may get us further.
>
>I don't disagree with criticism of MARC.  And I have
worked with MARC
>(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also
didn't say that because it
>is still around, it must be good. I said that its
longevity may lend some
>credibility to its design. It can be said that it is
still around, as Ross
>did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We
must either build our
>own changes or create some market force to change the
vendors library use. 
>Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being
"good" (ie, it is very
>expensive to go to something else and being less
expensive than going to
>something else can be a "good attribute".) 
>
>I am also not advocating just staying with it. My
concerns are about just
>dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in
choreography of technology
>design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave
behind the lesser
>elements of MARC. 
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has
some prescriptive powers
>(for good _and_ bad).  But this is true with
technologies even using open
>standards, source code... there are some very
prescriptive elements to
>whatever technologies are chosen.  
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
>From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinsongmail.com>
>To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?
>
>  
>
>>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/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>  
>

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

In my view, the longevity and widespread adoption of MARC
cataloging has 
as much to do with the accompanying manual for data entry --
AACR# -- as 
it does for the standard itself.  AACR# reflects a broadly-
and 
thoughtfully-derived community consensus on the business
rules and best 
practices for writing bibliographic metadata.  Few
communities outside 
of the 'library world' have made an  investment in something
similar (in 
fact, some have looked to AACR#).  So I guess my vote for
innovation 
would go to AACR#, not to MARC.

Gail Clement
Head, Digital Collections Center
Florida International University Libraries
http://digitalcoll
ections.fiu.edu/

e roel wrote:

>It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and
take from something
>the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest
thing to attack,
>certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in
the least reductive
>way may get us further.
>
>I don't disagree with criticism of MARC.  And I have
worked with MARC
>(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also
didn't say that because it
>is still around, it must be good. I said that its
longevity may lend some
>credibility to its design. It can be said that it is
still around, as Ross
>did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We
must either build our
>own changes or create some market force to change the
vendors library use. 
>Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being
"good" (ie, it is very
>expensive to go to something else and being less
expensive than going to
>something else can be a "good attribute".) 
>
>I am also not advocating just staying with it. My
concerns are about just
>dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in
choreography of technology
>design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave
behind the lesser
>elements of MARC. 
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has
some prescriptive powers
>(for good _and_ bad).  But this is true with
technologies even using open
>standards, source code... there are some very
prescriptive elements to
>whatever technologies are chosen.  
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
>From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinsongmail.com>
>To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?
>
>  
>
>>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/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>  
>

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

I think the MARC format still does pretty well, after all
these years, 
in the context in which it was originally developed:
physical 
repositories, containing physical items, in physical
locations, that 
physically circulated. For virtual items, in ambiguous or
multiple 
repositories, associated with complex digital rights and
access 
requirements -- not even to mention the possibility of
compound objects, 
with internal structures and mutable parts -- the MARC
format is often 
woefully inadequate, and trying to cram such objects into it
just a 
disservice. It's not necessary, in other words -- and it's
not any 
longer advisable -- to center our institutions around one
type of record 
or database. Once we can think of MARC as just one record
format among 
the many available to us, and of its associated catalog as
just one 
*kind* of database among many others that we can provide,
then that 
alone will be a big step toward a greater openness to
innovation in 
libraries.

Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbellubc.ca

e roel wrote:

>It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and
take from something
>the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest
thing to attack,
>certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in
the least reductive
>way may get us further.
>
>I don't disagree with criticism of MARC.  And I have
worked with MARC
>(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also
didn't say that because it
>is still around, it must be good. I said that its
longevity may lend some
>credibility to its design. It can be said that it is
still around, as Ross
>did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We
must either build our
>own changes or create some market force to change the
vendors library use. 
>Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being
"good" (ie, it is very
>expensive to go to something else and being less
expensive than going to
>something else can be a "good attribute".) 
>
>I am also not advocating just staying with it. My
concerns are about just
>dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in
choreography of technology
>design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave
behind the lesser
>elements of MARC. 
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has
some prescriptive powers
>(for good _and_ bad).  But this is true with
technologies even using open
>standards, source code... there are some very
prescriptive elements to
>whatever technologies are chosen.  
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
>From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinsongmail.com>
>To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?
>
>  
>
>>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/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

I think the MARC format still does pretty well, after all
these years, 
in the context in which it was originally developed:
physical 
repositories, containing physical items, in physical
locations, that 
physically circulated. For virtual items, in ambiguous or
multiple 
repositories, associated with complex digital rights and
access 
requirements -- not even to mention the possibility of
compound objects, 
with internal structures and mutable parts -- the MARC
format is often 
woefully inadequate, and trying to cram such objects into it
just a 
disservice. It's not necessary, in other words -- and it's
not any 
longer advisable -- to center our institutions around one
type of record 
or database. Once we can think of MARC as just one record
format among 
the many available to us, and of its associated catalog as
just one 
*kind* of database among many others that we can provide,
then that 
alone will be a big step toward a greater openness to
innovation in 
libraries.

Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbellubc.ca

e roel wrote:

>It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and
take from something
>the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest
thing to attack,
>certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in
the least reductive
>way may get us further.
>
>I don't disagree with criticism of MARC.  And I have
worked with MARC
>(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also
didn't say that because it
>is still around, it must be good. I said that its
longevity may lend some
>credibility to its design. It can be said that it is
still around, as Ross
>did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We
must either build our
>own changes or create some market force to change the
vendors library use. 
>Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being
"good" (ie, it is very
>expensive to go to something else and being less
expensive than going to
>something else can be a "good attribute".) 
>
>I am also not advocating just staying with it. My
concerns are about just
>dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in
choreography of technology
>design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave
behind the lesser
>elements of MARC. 
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has
some prescriptive powers
>(for good _and_ bad).  But this is true with
technologies even using open
>standards, source code... there are some very
prescriptive elements to
>whatever technologies are chosen.  
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
>From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinsongmail.com>
>To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?
>
>  
>
>>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/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4libwebjunction.org
>http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

In order to tell the difference between an music LP and a
music CD from the MARC record, you have to look at position
6 of the 007 field, which is the physical dimensions of the
object.  MARC does fine for printed materials, but it's got
some problems even for other physical materials. 
 
MARC is far from perfect, but it's not even close to being
the main reason that libraries don't innovate more -- it's
just a convenient scapegoat.  MARC bashing distracts from
the real organizational, cultural and economic problems
which stifle innovation in libraries.  Has anyone out there
really had more projects impeded/killed/shelved
indefinitely/committeed to death/failed due to MARC than due
to non-technical issues?  
 
Can NCIP-bashing be the new MARC-bashing?
 
--Casey

>>> Larry Campbell <larry.campbellubc.ca> 6/27/2007 9:11 AM >>>

I think the MARC format still does pretty well, after all
these years, 
in the context in which it was originally developed:
physical 
repositories, containing physical items, in physical
locations, that 
physically circulated. For virtual items, in ambiguous or
multiple 
repositories, associated with complex digital rights and
access 
requirements -- not even to mention the possibility of
compound objects, 
with internal structures and mutable parts -- the MARC
format is often 
woefully inadequate, and trying to cram such objects into it
just a 
disservice. It's not necessary, in other words -- and it's
not any 
longer advisable -- to center our institutions around one
type of record 
or database. Once we can think of MARC as just one record
format among 
the many available to us, and of its associated catalog as
just one 
*kind* of database among many others that we can provide,
then that 
alone will be a big step toward a greater openness to
innovation in 
libraries.

Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbellubc.ca
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

In order to tell the difference between an music LP and a
music CD from the MARC record, you have to look at position
6 of the 007 field, which is the physical dimensions of the
object.  MARC does fine for printed materials, but it's got
some problems even for other physical materials. 
 
MARC is far from perfect, but it's not even close to being
the main reason that libraries don't innovate more -- it's
just a convenient scapegoat.  MARC bashing distracts from
the real organizational, cultural and economic problems
which stifle innovation in libraries.  Has anyone out there
really had more projects impeded/killed/shelved
indefinitely/committeed to death/failed due to MARC than due
to non-technical issues?  
 
Can NCIP-bashing be the new MARC-bashing?
 
--Casey

>>> Larry Campbell <larry.campbellubc.ca> 6/27/2007 9:11 AM >>>

I think the MARC format still does pretty well, after all
these years, 
in the context in which it was originally developed:
physical 
repositories, containing physical items, in physical
locations, that 
physically circulated. For virtual items, in ambiguous or
multiple 
repositories, associated with complex digital rights and
access 
requirements -- not even to mention the possibility of
compound objects, 
with internal structures and mutable parts -- the MARC
format is often 
woefully inadequate, and trying to cram such objects into it
just a 
disservice. It's not necessary, in other words -- and it's
not any 
longer advisable -- to center our institutions around one
type of record 
or database. Once we can think of MARC as just one record
format among 
the many available to us, and of its associated catalog as
just one 
*kind* of database among many others that we can provide,
then that 
alone will be a big step toward a greater openness to
innovation in 
libraries.

Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbellubc.ca
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/