Point very well taken on de-coupling AACR from MARC. Thank
you for that.
------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:12:06 AM EDT
From: Gail Clement <clementg fiu.edu>
To: Web4Lib <web4libwebjunction.org>Cc: e roel
<e.roelusa.net>
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries
Innovate?
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
|
