Bernhard Eversberg wrote: > We have to keep in mind that XML as such is not on the same level as > MARC. It is a punctuation standard and as such can only replace ISO2709, > whereas MARC is a grammar and as such can be replaced, in the XML > context, only by a Schema. So I suppose that's what you mean. Leaves > us with the question "Which schema?" MARCXML? That's nothing but MARC > in a much more unwieldy costume. What else have we got?
I believe that XML formats of MARC are far more flexible than you appear to believe--certainly far more flexible than any ISO2709 head-breaking format. I wouldn't have opted in my article for MARCXML, probably a variant MODS, Dublin Core, or even made up a unique XML coding simply for purposes of examples. *Nobody* besides librarians understands anything about MARC, certainly not in the ISO2709 or even in the XML version. > One practical question: You suggest we get rid of the "preferred > title" and have just titles, as many as needed? In my suggestion, all titles would be treated equally. The function of the traditional string of "preferred title" of grouping would be handled by the URI which no one would see (probably). Each user could set their own "preferred title" so for example, if an Italian were in the US or Germany, he or she could set Italian forms of names. Again, this would necessitate changes in the current structures of our files, i.e. adding a language subfield for each form of name. Also, at least in AACR2/LCRI practice, if a reference conflicts with a heading, you are to break the conflict, but if a reference conflicts with a reference, you do not break the conflict. In a system such as I am proposing, you may have to break those conflicts as well. I am sure there would be other changes, too. > > In such a system, the procedures would have to change significantly, > > although not completely. I thought that the main change would be in the > > "worldview" of the cataloger. > > > The new worldview according to RDA is here: > > http://www.rdaonline.org/ERDiagramRDA_24June2008.pdf > > That's an entity-relationship diagram. (Can anyone sketch a relational > database design based on it? Would that be practicable? Would it scale?) > Print it out on 3" by 4" stationery and wallpaper your room with the > 15 sheets you get. What a great diagram! That will send everybody running for sure! But to be fair, what I meant by my statement that the "worldview' of the cataloger would change is the inevitable fact that records produced by German agencies, French agencies, Italian, Russian and others will all go into the same pot someday. Therefore, the cataloger's worldview should include all records in all rules. Not only AACR2/RDA, but in all rules. Why? Because people will want to use--and will use such a tool. The informational universe of our users is changing to include much more than ever before and if we want to continue to be relevant, we must make tools that will serve their needs--not just ours. Expecting everybody to use a single form of name would be just as unrealistic as expecting everybody to learn Esperanto. It simply won't happen. The world will not change to suit our purposes--we are the ones who must change and use the full power today's technology affords. This is why I think that "preferred title" is based on 19th century methods and ultimately will prove itself not to be sustainable. Jim Weinheimer
