> > OS:As an example, I cannot see how MARC could support a linked data > > approach to information stored in fixed fields - one of the places > where > > it would benefit from it. > > MM: Systems already use MARC fixed fields information to display icons > related to format and to refine searches and there are drop down boxes > with > additional information. There is no reason a system design cannot use > the > code in the fixed fields to provide additional information to a user. >
This is slightly different - I agree systems can be intelligent about how they use coded information, but I very strongly believe that we need to use linked data, not codes that need system interpretation. We may be in danger of violently agreeing on the basic premise here :) > This IS covering the ground that FRBR and FRAD claim to be covering but > I > and many others are growing frustrated in not seeing any progress > beyond the > theorizing that began years ago and virtually nothing on FRAD (where > some of > think we need to start). Progress might be happening in secret > somewhere but > those of us waiting eagerly in the wings are beginning to think it > isn't > going to happen, or if it does, it will not be as well designed as it > could > be. I do think RDA is trying to build on the FRBR/FRAD effort but their > work > might be easier if they had a clearer structure around which to build > their > documentation. Yes, I know that RDA is supposed to free us from > structure, > but we all know there has to be some structure or they can reduce RDA > to > "put in what you want". > I suspect that many would agree - it is frustratingly slow. However, as we can see from discussion on this list, there is still much work to be done to persuade people that (a) change is needed and (b) RDA is a step in vaguely the right direction. As you probably know, the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control seem to recommend that more fundamental work needed to be done to 'test' FRBR, and work on RDA should be suspended until this was done: 3.2.5.1 JSC: Suspend further new development work on RDA until a) the use and business cases for moving to RDA have been satisfactorily articulated, b) the presumed benefits of RDA have been convincingly demonstrated, and c) more, large-scale, comprehensive testing of FRBR as it relates to proposed provisions of RDA has been carried out against real cataloging data, and the results of those tests have been analyzed (see 4.2.1 below) However, LoC together with NAL and NLM responded by saying that: Until the completion of the rules and the availability of the RDA online tool, reviewers will not be able fully to assess their impact on: Description, access, and navigation practices for a broad array of users and types of materials Current and future electronic carriers and information management systems to support RDA goals Estimated costs for implementation and maintenance during a time of flat, even reduced, budgets Essentially saying that RDA should be completed, and then an assessment carried out - now it has been announced that there will be a delay to the 'online tool' I'm not sure whether this will change the statement above (i.e. will an assessment of impact be possible with only the text available?) It feels like a real chicken and egg scenario - we are unlikely to see substantial effort going into systems supporting RDA unless it is adopted by the community. The community is unlikely to adopt RDA if there are no systems that support it... Owen
