I find it kind of ironic that a discussion of whether
libraries innovate quickly gravitates into a discussion of
the pros and cons of the MARC format (40+ years old) which
is largely used to format bibliographic records for OPACs
(25+? years old).
Fifteen years ago this week I posted the following to the
old PACS-L e-mail list. In some respects it seems like we
are still sort of carrying on this same conversation in this
Web4LIb thread:
"The idea probably isn't original or novel, but it
struck me that perhaps we might want to start thinking in
terms of a post-OPAC age. Many people have commented on the
paradigm shift that will be put in motion by expanded and
enhanced access to electronic information resources. I'm not
sure that we can fully make that shift if we continue to
think (whether consciously or subconsciously) of an
information universe that revolves around the OPAC.
Granted, OPACs were a vast improvement over manual card
catalogs, but they were still an extension of a manual
system that was established to manage or control a library's
in-house resources. OPACs (and their card catalog
predecessors) were not designed to cope with the myriad of
networked electronic resources that people are confronted
with today.
We all need to start thinking of OPACs as a PART of the
solution, rather than as THE solution. More and more,
information will be represented and presented in ways that
were largely not considered when OPACs started to be
developed.
There will always be OPACs (or their equivalents) to help
people manage the flow of information. But efforts in the
post-OPAC era should be aimed at developing gateways to
information resources, of which the OPAC is only a
part."
Bernie Sloan
Larry Campbell <larry.campbell ubc.ca> wrote:
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
>To: Web4Lib
>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"
>>>to: "Jesse Ephraim" 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 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/
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge
to see what's on, when.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
|
